3 ms·
> It's more the equivalent of hiring billions of cops and having them w That itself would be unconstitutional. There is also the "spirit of the law" which is
by NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
> It's more the equivalent of hiring billions of cops and having them w
That itself would be unconstitutional. There is also the "spirit of the law" which is "you're not allowed to go digging around to find ways to violate these rights by inventing outlandish schemes that no one could imagine in the late 1700s".
When technology has no other effect than to cause the same result that might be accomplished by hiring billions of cops to watch everyone, then that effect itself is, without a doubt, unconstitutional.
> I don't think the constitution would prohibit hiring billions of cops, if
Why, though? That's the real question. Do you think the point of it was to just create a few hoops for the authorities to jump through, maybe for shits and giggles?
Why do you think this?
- freedomben 3y ago> That itself would be unconstitutional. > When technology has no other effect than to cause the same result that might be accomplished by hiring billions of cops to watch everyone, then that effect itself is, without a doubt, unconstitutional. Which part of the Constitution would this violate? > Why, though? That's the real question. Do you think the point of it was to just create a few hoops for the authorities to jump through, maybe for shits and giggles? Why do you think this? I'm going to assume good faith on this question. The US Constitution mainly applies to the Federal government. The vast majority of these police units are at the state and local levels. The US Constitution enumerates the powers of the federal government, and then delegates all the remaining to the States.