10 ms·

Go through each of the Bill of Rights, and for each produce a scenario where that right would be used by a criminal to protect him or her from planning, executi

Go through each of the Bill of Rights, and for each produce a scenario where that right would be used by a criminal to protect him or her from planning, executing, and avoiding detection of a crime. All individual rights are carved out from the default government, which is the one that takes absolute authority over all within its domain. North Korea is closest to this ideal today, but most vanilla monarchies were like this in the west. Law enforcement officers (and politicians) must confront the simple fact that they must accept the restraints that the law places on them, even if it means letting the bad guy get away with it. Getting the bad guy at any cost ("Tango and Cash" style) makes a fun movie but it undermines the freedoms that our ancestors (by both blood and principal) fought and died for.

dgzl 7y ago
But what about the children?
robomartin 7y ago
> All individual rights are carved out from the default government Not sure this is how you meant it. If you mean to say that rights come from governments that is not quite correct, at least not in the US. Rights, in the US, are not GRANTED by government, they are RECOGNIZED by the US Constitution to exist OUTSIDE OF GOVERNMENT (upper case is for emphasis only). In other words, these rights don't require government in order to exist. We are recognized to have them and government can't do a thing about it other than to respect and protect them. This is a massive difference with other systems that lots of people, both inside and outside the US are not aware of. Take the right to bare arms as an example. In most other nations, if it exists, this is a right granted by government to the people. In the US this is a right recognized by the constitution to exist despite and outside of government. Here's the key difference between "grant" and "recognize": The government can't take away that which it does not own, did not and cannot grant. An example of a right (well, a privilege) government can take away is your driver's license. They grant it and they can take it away. In the case of firearms, the US government does not have the ability to confiscate weapons because that is not a right the government granted and, therefore, they don't have unilateral power to cancel that right with a simple bill. In fact, it takes a tremendously complex agreement across all States and the federal government to make any changes to the US Constitution (2/3 majority in the Senate, House and all 50 State Legislatures). Even that does not guarantee government to have the right to eliminate rights. This is good. This means, among other things, that the government can't take your freedom of speech away because they do not own it, they did not grant it. It is recognized as a fundamental right. All rights in the Bill of Rights are equal in this sense (as far as I know). If we weaken one of them (as many want to do with firearms) you run the risk of opening Pandora's box and exposing the people to government control of rights. It's an interesting problem. Coming from this perspective it is hard to understand why people in any nation would want to live in an environment where the government owns and grants rights --and can take them away at will. If the idea is that government works for us --they are our representatives-- why in the world would it make sense that they would be able to take away our rights? Imperfect analogy: It's like a project manager hiring a worker and then having that worker fire the project manager. PS.: A lot of anti-gun activists keep pointing at places like New Zealand and their gun confiscation and buy-back programs. The typical cry is "We should do the same". Well, we can't. Government did not grant, nor does it own that right. And it can't take it away. In many ways this kind of activism is nothing less than futile and even nonsensical. It's almost like demanding that we change the gravitational constant in that it is about as likely.
- vageli 7y ago
  > > All individual rights are carved out from the default government > Not sure this is how you meant it. If you mean to say that rights come from governments that is not quite correct, at least not in the US. > Rights, in the US, are not GRANTED by government, they are RECOGNIZED by the US Constitution to exist OUTSIDE OF GOVERNMENT (upper case is for emphasis only). In other words, these rights don't require government in order to exist. We are recognized to have them and government can't do a thing about it other than to respect and protect them. > This is a massive difference with other systems that lots of people, both inside and outside the US are not aware of. > Take the right to bare arms as an example. In most other nations, if it exists, this is a right granted by government to the people. In the US this is a right recognized by the constitution to exist despite and outside of government. > Here's the key difference between "grant" and "recognize": The government can't take away that which it does not own, did not and cannot grant. > An example of a right (well, a privilege) government can take away is your driver's license. They grant it and they can take it away. > In the case of firearms, the US government does not have the ability to confiscate weapons because that is not a right the government granted and, therefore, they don't have unilateral power to cancel that right with a simple bill. In fact, it takes a tremendously complex agreement across all States and the federal government to make any changes to the US Constitution (2/3 majority in the Senate, House and all 50 State Legislatures). Even that does not guarantee government to have the right to eliminate rights. This argument is a prime example against the point you are trying to make. With guns, the government is constantly eroding that right by narrowing the scope of what constitutes a legally permissible gun. Wicard vs Filburn is another example of government rewriting the limits of their power without the consent of the people. Why did prohibition require an amendment but drugs are scheduled today without the necessity for constitutional amendments? All organizations seek to expand their influence and power over time.
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    Prohibition didn't require an amendment, except insofar as the people pushing for it wanted to make it hard to overturn. State and local governments had outlawed alcohol since the founding. If outlawing alcohol were somehow special, that wouldn't have been possible.
taxidump 7y ago
>All individual rights are carved out from the default government...North Korea is closest to this ideal today.. America is not even close to North Korea in relation to human rights and freedoms, and I feel no source is required as this is just hyperbole. Edit add words.
- weavejester 7y ago
  You've misunderstood those sentences. The OP is saying that out of all the governments in the world, North Korea is the one that grants its citizens the least rights.
Simon_says 7y ago
Amendment 3 is pretty tough.
- skrebbel 7y ago
  Googled it so you don't have to: "The Third Amendment to the United States Constitution places restrictions on the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owner's consent, forbidding the practice in peacetime."
  - BLKNSLVR 7y ago
    How well defined is 'peacetime'?
    - nickthemagicman 7y ago
      There's groups out there I'm sure that could make the justification that something like 'the war on drugs' or 'the war on belly fat' means we're not at peacetime.
      - bluejekyll 7y ago
        I think this is the first case the Supreme Court heard: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey Because of the lack of any prior Third Amendment jurisprudence, this decision established three important holdings not previously articulated: (1) that the National Guardsmen qualify as soldiers under the Third Amendment; (2) that the Third Amendment applies to state as well as federal authorities, i.e., is incorporated against the states; and (3), that the protection of the Third Amendment extends beyond home owners, that is, those only with a fee simple arrangement, but includes anyone who, within their residence, has a legal expectation of privacy and a legal right to exclude others from entry into the premises.[1] The majority held that the correctional officers' occupancy in the rooms was covered under the legal rules of "tenancy" and was therefore protected under the Third Amendment. Basically, the state kicked striking prison guards out of their employee benefit housing for national guard troops to use while the national guard was used for overseeing the prison. Nixon started “the war on drugs”, and it looks like they didn’t try to use that as a defense.
newguy1234 7y ago
Yup and these days I would say that individuals need to go the extra step by using technologies to ensure their rights are never violated. Simply having the right written into law is not good enough anymore.
mtgx 7y ago
Yeah, but if you read closely their speeches, they're trying to paint this as if we shouldn't benefit from "warrantproof encryption" or be able to "resist a warrant". Leaving the technical details aside such as the fact that it's not possible to have a "secure backdoor" that won't ultimately be used by the (other) "bad guys", this is important because they make it seem as if this is the only way they'd ever use this power -- with a warrant. And THAT is beyond FALSE and a BIG FAT LIE, and they know it. Watch Bush's speech about the Patriot Act when he signed it. He said the bill will be used to "read the terrorists' emails" and other digital communications. Now we know that in 97-99% of the cases, the Patriot Act is used for crimes other than terrorism, usually drug related. But the FBI also absolutely loves to abuse the National Security Letters for at least half of their data requests to big data companies. And the best part is those come with gag orders so the public will almost never find out about those requests. Worse yet, since these were past, these powers were further expanded, usually days before Christmas, so now the FBI gets access to RAW internet data just like only the NSA did previously. So does DEA, and about 15 other agencies. No warrant needed, for just about any crime they'd like to investigate. And you can bet this is their plan with the encryption backdoors, too. I guarantee it. They'll continue to talk in public about warrants and how they will only use it with a warrant, and then somehow the bill will be written to include all sorts of ways for them to access the encrypted data WITHOUT a warrant. Even when the criticism against a surveillance bill is very strong, they still somehow end-up "compromising" by only getting warrantless access in "emergency situations" (where emergency isn't defined too specifically) or for "serious crimes" (often not well defined in the bill either). Or they manage to sneak a serious crimes "and other type of crimes" in there, too, as they've done in some bills in the past. So let's not be naive with the whole "warrantproof" talking point. They're trying to distract and mislead us. Ultimately, even if the bill is very specific about a warrant, they just know they can expand it later after one or two renewals, as they've done with FISA 702 to now give other federal agencies much of the same data access NSA gets, even though that wasn't supposed to be the original plan at all.
- javajosh 7y ago
  In fairness, I think we want a panopticon. We just want to intentionally blind it when it comes to us; however, if there is evidence of a crime, I'm okay with accessing normally forbidden parts of the panopticon to find the wrong-doer. But yeah, they reach for too much power almost reflexively. IMHO every time law enforcement asks for more power, the people should be reflexively skeptical, even derisive. Tell me, are local police so bad at their job that they need these superpowers? This level of surveillance is akin to a WMD. They just don't need it and shouldn't get it, and should get punished (e.g. fired) for asking for it.

dgzl 7y ago

But what about the children?

robomartin 7y ago

> All individual rights are carved out from the default government Not sure this is how you meant it. If you mean to say that rights come from governments that is not quite correct, at least not in the US. Rights, in the US, are not GRANTED by government, they are RECOGNIZED by the US Constitution to exist OUTSIDE OF GOVERNMENT (upper case is for emphasis only). In other words, these rights don't require government in order to exist. We are recognized to have them and government can't do a thing about it other than to respect and protect them. This is a massive difference with other systems that lots of people, both inside and outside the US are not aware of. Take the right to bare arms as an example. In most other nations, if it exists, this is a right granted by government to the people. In the US this is a right recognized by the constitution to exist despite and outside of government. Here's the key difference between "grant" and "recognize": The government can't take away that which it does not own, did not and cannot grant. An example of a right (well, a privilege) government can take away is your driver's license. They grant it and they can take it away. In the case of firearms, the US government does not have the ability to confiscate weapons because that is not a right the government granted and, therefore, they don't have unilateral power to cancel that right with a simple bill. In fact, it takes a tremendously complex agreement across all States and the federal government to make any changes to the US Constitution (2/3 majority in the Senate, House and all 50 State Legislatures). Even that does not guarantee government to have the right to eliminate rights. This is good. This means, among other things, that the government can't take your freedom of speech away because they do not own it, they did not grant it. It is recognized as a fundamental right. All rights in the Bill of Rights are equal in this sense (as far as I know). If we weaken one of them (as many want to do with firearms) you run the risk of opening Pandora's box and exposing the people to government control of rights. It's an interesting problem. Coming from this perspective it is hard to understand why people in any nation would want to live in an environment where the government owns and grants rights --and can take them away at will. If the idea is that government works for us --they are our representatives-- why in the world would it make sense that they would be able to take away our rights? Imperfect analogy: It's like a project manager hiring a worker and then having that worker fire the project manager. PS.: A lot of anti-gun activists keep pointing at places like New Zealand and their gun confiscation and buy-back programs. The typical cry is "We should do the same". Well, we can't. Government did not grant, nor does it own that right. And it can't take it away. In many ways this kind of activism is nothing less than futile and even nonsensical. It's almost like demanding that we change the gravitational constant in that it is about as likely.

vageli 7y ago
> > All individual rights are carved out from the default government > Not sure this is how you meant it. If you mean to say that rights come from governments that is not quite correct, at least not in the US. > Rights, in the US, are not GRANTED by government, they are RECOGNIZED by the US Constitution to exist OUTSIDE OF GOVERNMENT (upper case is for emphasis only). In other words, these rights don't require government in order to exist. We are recognized to have them and government can't do a thing about it other than to respect and protect them. > This is a massive difference with other systems that lots of people, both inside and outside the US are not aware of. > Take the right to bare arms as an example. In most other nations, if it exists, this is a right granted by government to the people. In the US this is a right recognized by the constitution to exist despite and outside of government. > Here's the key difference between "grant" and "recognize": The government can't take away that which it does not own, did not and cannot grant. > An example of a right (well, a privilege) government can take away is your driver's license. They grant it and they can take it away. > In the case of firearms, the US government does not have the ability to confiscate weapons because that is not a right the government granted and, therefore, they don't have unilateral power to cancel that right with a simple bill. In fact, it takes a tremendously complex agreement across all States and the federal government to make any changes to the US Constitution (2/3 majority in the Senate, House and all 50 State Legislatures). Even that does not guarantee government to have the right to eliminate rights. This argument is a prime example against the point you are trying to make. With guns, the government is constantly eroding that right by narrowing the scope of what constitutes a legally permissible gun. Wicard vs Filburn is another example of government rewriting the limits of their power without the consent of the people. Why did prohibition require an amendment but drugs are scheduled today without the necessity for constitutional amendments? All organizations seek to expand their influence and power over time.
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  Prohibition didn't require an amendment, except insofar as the people pushing for it wanted to make it hard to overturn. State and local governments had outlawed alcohol since the founding. If outlawing alcohol were somehow special, that wouldn't have been possible.

taxidump 7y ago

>All individual rights are carved out from the default government...North Korea is closest to this ideal today.. America is not even close to North Korea in relation to human rights and freedoms, and I feel no source is required as this is just hyperbole. Edit add words.

weavejester 7y ago
You've misunderstood those sentences. The OP is saying that out of all the governments in the world, North Korea is the one that grants its citizens the least rights.

Simon_says 7y ago

Amendment 3 is pretty tough.

skrebbel 7y ago
Googled it so you don't have to: "The Third Amendment to the United States Constitution places restrictions on the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owner's consent, forbidding the practice in peacetime."
- BLKNSLVR 7y ago
  How well defined is 'peacetime'?
  - nickthemagicman 7y ago
    There's groups out there I'm sure that could make the justification that something like 'the war on drugs' or 'the war on belly fat' means we're not at peacetime.
    - bluejekyll 7y ago
      I think this is the first case the Supreme Court heard: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey Because of the lack of any prior Third Amendment jurisprudence, this decision established three important holdings not previously articulated: (1) that the National Guardsmen qualify as soldiers under the Third Amendment; (2) that the Third Amendment applies to state as well as federal authorities, i.e., is incorporated against the states; and (3), that the protection of the Third Amendment extends beyond home owners, that is, those only with a fee simple arrangement, but includes anyone who, within their residence, has a legal expectation of privacy and a legal right to exclude others from entry into the premises.[1] The majority held that the correctional officers' occupancy in the rooms was covered under the legal rules of "tenancy" and was therefore protected under the Third Amendment. Basically, the state kicked striking prison guards out of their employee benefit housing for national guard troops to use while the national guard was used for overseeing the prison. Nixon started “the war on drugs”, and it looks like they didn’t try to use that as a defense.

newguy1234 7y ago

Yup and these days I would say that individuals need to go the extra step by using technologies to ensure their rights are never violated. Simply having the right written into law is not good enough anymore.

mtgx 7y ago

Yeah, but if you read closely their speeches, they're trying to paint this as if we shouldn't benefit from "warrantproof encryption" or be able to "resist a warrant". Leaving the technical details aside such as the fact that it's not possible to have a "secure backdoor" that won't ultimately be used by the (other) "bad guys", this is important because they make it seem as if this is the only way they'd ever use this power -- with a warrant. And THAT is beyond FALSE and a BIG FAT LIE, and they know it. Watch Bush's speech about the Patriot Act when he signed it. He said the bill will be used to "read the terrorists' emails" and other digital communications. Now we know that in 97-99% of the cases, the Patriot Act is used for crimes other than terrorism, usually drug related. But the FBI also absolutely loves to abuse the National Security Letters for at least half of their data requests to big data companies. And the best part is those come with gag orders so the public will almost never find out about those requests. Worse yet, since these were past, these powers were further expanded, usually days before Christmas, so now the FBI gets access to RAW internet data just like only the NSA did previously. So does DEA, and about 15 other agencies. No warrant needed, for just about any crime they'd like to investigate. And you can bet this is their plan with the encryption backdoors, too. I guarantee it. They'll continue to talk in public about warrants and how they will only use it with a warrant, and then somehow the bill will be written to include all sorts of ways for them to access the encrypted data WITHOUT a warrant. Even when the criticism against a surveillance bill is very strong, they still somehow end-up "compromising" by only getting warrantless access in "emergency situations" (where emergency isn't defined too specifically) or for "serious crimes" (often not well defined in the bill either). Or they manage to sneak a serious crimes "and other type of crimes" in there, too, as they've done in some bills in the past. So let's not be naive with the whole "warrantproof" talking point. They're trying to distract and mislead us. Ultimately, even if the bill is very specific about a warrant, they just know they can expand it later after one or two renewals, as they've done with FISA 702 to now give other federal agencies much of the same data access NSA gets, even though that wasn't supposed to be the original plan at all.

javajosh 7y ago
In fairness, I think we want a panopticon. We just want to intentionally blind it when it comes to us; however, if there is evidence of a crime, I'm okay with accessing normally forbidden parts of the panopticon to find the wrong-doer. But yeah, they reach for too much power almost reflexively. IMHO every time law enforcement asks for more power, the people should be reflexively skeptical, even derisive. Tell me, are local police so bad at their job that they need these superpowers? This level of surveillance is akin to a WMD. They just don't need it and shouldn't get it, and should get punished (e.g. fired) for asking for it.