4 ms·

Right but why should “the populace” even need to be aware of the problem? If the people with political power believe in these principles themselves shouldn't th

Right but why should “the populace” even need to be aware of the problem? If the people with political power believe in these principles themselves shouldn't they just draft some new legislation to fix it? When Russia invaded Ukraine our leaders jumped into action to help them defend their country even on another continent, but when what is supposedly one of the founding principles of the US is totally broken you think its consistent with the assumption that our leaders share these values with us for them to drag their feet for multiple decades?

mlyle 3y ago
Legislation doesn't affect the interpretation of the constitution. And in this case, judicial precedent follows evolving (both popular and legal) ideas of what the words in the constitution mean. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." "Persons, houses, papers, and effects" has been interpreted in terms of what things a person had, excluding things that they had given someone else to hold. It was a pretty reasonable interpretation and compromise, until it was the governing case law that covered the cloud.
- goodSteveramos 3y ago
  > Legislation doesn't affect the interpretation of the constitution. Legislation can limit what Federal agents are allowed to do totally irrespectively of whether those things would separately violate the constitution.
  - mlyle 3y ago
    Sure, but we're not really talking about federal agents for the most part. We're talking about local police forces in states sending subpoenas to Ring.
    - goodSteveramos 3y ago
      I cant believe you are making me say this but… s/federal agents/local police/g
      - mlyle 3y ago
        Federal law's ability to enjoin local police activity is limited. And in any case: the law is a blunt instrument. It's (usually) better as a slowly changing representation of conventions and social consensus instead of something that we make sweeping changes in (whether legislatively or judicially).
        goodSteveramos 3y ago
        What limits it?

mlyle 3y ago

Legislation doesn't affect the interpretation of the constitution. And in this case, judicial precedent follows evolving (both popular and legal) ideas of what the words in the constitution mean. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." "Persons, houses, papers, and effects" has been interpreted in terms of what things a person had, excluding things that they had given someone else to hold. It was a pretty reasonable interpretation and compromise, until it was the governing case law that covered the cloud.

goodSteveramos 3y ago
> Legislation doesn't affect the interpretation of the constitution. Legislation can limit what Federal agents are allowed to do totally irrespectively of whether those things would separately violate the constitution.
- mlyle 3y ago
  Sure, but we're not really talking about federal agents for the most part. We're talking about local police forces in states sending subpoenas to Ring.
  - goodSteveramos 3y ago
    I cant believe you are making me say this but… s/federal agents/local police/g
    - mlyle 3y ago
      Federal law's ability to enjoin local police activity is limited. And in any case: the law is a blunt instrument. It's (usually) better as a slowly changing representation of conventions and social consensus instead of something that we make sweeping changes in (whether legislatively or judicially).
      - goodSteveramos 3y ago
        What limits it?