7 ms·

You cannot use a “fisa warrant” legally, they’re objectively unconstitutional. Conforming to the “legal requirements” means also conforming to the constitution

by olliej 2y ago

You cannot use a “fisa warrant” legally, they’re objectively unconstitutional. Conforming to the “legal requirements” means also conforming to the constitution, it doesn’t matter if someone writes a law that says you don’t need to obey the constitution, that just means the law itself is illegal. It’s amazing how government officials interpret the 2nd amendment (giving the right to bare arms in the absence of a formal militia to mean everyone can have guns in of all kinds in all cases, but then turn around and say the 4th amendment does not grant any rights at all)

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
> You cannot use a “fisa warrant” legally, they’re objectively unconstitutional. According to you. The courts think it's perfectly constitutional.
- dwater 2y ago
  Yes, in an alternate universe it would be gratifying to see a high court that wasn't captured by far right ideologues that was willing to take another look at precedent establishing decisions of the past that rolled back freedoms and privacy and say, "You know what, the facts that supported FISA, the Patriot Act, etc., were falsely manufactured for political reasons, and actually now that those falsehoods have come to light we think it's time to admit that those decisions were unsupported and should be reversed." But I expect the opposite for this universe.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
    I disagree that they're captured and I support FISA. FISA should be expanded as far as I am concerned.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    It's not a right/left thing, at least not in the colloquial sense those words are used in US. Laws like these have broad support on both sides of the political spectrum. The fundamental problem is authoritarianism, which is a disease infesting both left and right.
- pdonis 2y ago
  The courts claim lots of things are constitutional when any reasonable person can see that the claim is nonsense. To give just a few examples from Supreme Court cases: Seizing property to turn it over to a private developer instead of for public use is a valid use of the government's eminent domain power (Kelo v. New London). Congress regulating farmers growing wheat on their own property for their own and their animals' consumption on the grounds is a valid regulation of interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause (Wickard v. Filburn). Allowing Congress to delegate legislative power to the executive branch, in clear violation of Article I of the Constitution, as long as Congress gives an "intelligible principle" (Hampton Co. v. United States). Ruling that exercising your Fifth Amendment right not to be a witness against yourself can be taken as evidence of guilt (Salinas v. Texas).
readthenotes1 2y ago
"bare arms" The Constitution, afaik, is silent on the matter of shirt sleeves. However, a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. The crime is that the States have given up on forming those well-regulated militias and that we have a continuous standing army in a Military-Industrial-Congressional complex whose corruption boggles the mind.
- pdonis 2y ago
  > the States have given up on forming those well-regulated militias The States claim that state-run National Guard units are the "well-regulated militias". Their claim is wrong, but not for the reason you imply. The reason their claim is wrong is that the 2nd Amendment is about the right of the people to keep and bear arms to resist a tyrannical government--any tyrannical government: not just the Federal government, but the State governments as well. If the States can organize a militia and then say individual citizens no longer have the right to keep and bear arms outside that organized militia, that defeats the purpose of the 2nd Amendment just as much as the Federal government having a standing army and claiming it's an organized militia.
  - RajT88 2y ago
    That's actually incorrect. The second amendment is entirely about state militias, and anyone claiming it's related to resisting a tyrannical government hasn't actually read the documents they claim to have read. Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution outlines militias as a duty of congress, and the function of the militias (note: resisting a tyrannical government is not listed!) Article II, Section 2 defines the President as the commander in chief of the military and militias. The above is what the second amendment is making reference to. There are following acts of congress that clarify who gets to be in a militia: the militia acts of 1792, 1795, 1862 and 1903. These allow for people of different races and genders to join militias. The militia act of 1903 clarifies that there are different types of state militias: formal and informal. Formal is things like the National Guard, Texas Rangers, etc. Informal is - in times of emergency, the state can basically just round up a posse for the outlined purposes in Article 1, Section 8. The second amendment does guarantee personal firearm ownership under this possibility, connected to possible service in an informal militia. You're welcome.
pdonis 2y ago
> giving the right to bare arms in the absence of a formal militia That's not what the 2nd amendment says. It says "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". That doesn't mean that if the government decides to organize a formal militia, people's individual right to keep and bear arms goes away; that would defeat the whole purpose of the amendment, which is to enable the people to resist a tyrannical government, just as the Americans resisted British tyranny using their own individual arms. In other words, the "well-regulated militia" is the entire body of armed citizens. The "well-regulated" part means that the citizens themselves are supposed to regulate their own and each other's use of arms so that they are not used to promote tyranny instead of resist it.
- thfuran 2y ago
  >that would defeat the whole purpose of the amendment, which is to enable the people to resist a tyrannical government That doesn't really jive with the president being explicitly legally empowered to call upon the militia to quell insurrection.
  - pdonis 2y ago
    Yes, it does, because the militia has more than one purpose. It's not only for resisting a tyrannical government. That's one of its purposes, but not the only one. Indeed, once the Declaration of Independence had been signed and published, one could argue that the United States were in fact organizing and using the militia to "repel invasion" by the British. But the militia was used before that happened, when the only grounds for its use was to resist tyrannical government by the British.
    - olliej 2y ago
      The only people claiming they want to fight a "tyrannical government" as their justification for dick extensions are the people who routinely try to remove the rights of others, and are the same people who have repeatedly tried to use force to overthrow the elected government when their candidate lost. Parroting that nonsense, when everyone knows that the reason they want unrestricted access to guns is just that they're idiots that made having guns their personality. The 2nd amendment says "A well regulated Militia", but the "I need guns to compensate for personal issues" people say you can't have any regulations or rules that would in anyway require the to actually be mentally or physically capable of supporting a free State. Again, the group of people arguing for the definition of the 2nd amendment that gives unrestricted access to guns are the people who routinely and consistently opposed the "free State" the 2nd amendment is ostensibly for, hell they generally oppose the 1st, 5th, 8th, 15th, 24th, and 28th amendments, so any proclaimed absolutism about their support for the constitution is dubious at best. I'd make a claim based on current commentary that these groups don't support any of the the constitution at all given their repeated and explicit disdain for articles 1 through 3 that define the core of the us government.

by olliej 2y ago

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago

> You cannot use a “fisa warrant” legally, they’re objectively unconstitutional. According to you. The courts think it's perfectly constitutional.

dwater 2y ago
Yes, in an alternate universe it would be gratifying to see a high court that wasn't captured by far right ideologues that was willing to take another look at precedent establishing decisions of the past that rolled back freedoms and privacy and say, "You know what, the facts that supported FISA, the Patriot Act, etc., were falsely manufactured for political reasons, and actually now that those falsehoods have come to light we think it's time to admit that those decisions were unsupported and should be reversed." But I expect the opposite for this universe.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  I disagree that they're captured and I support FISA. FISA should be expanded as far as I am concerned.
- int_19h 2y ago
  It's not a right/left thing, at least not in the colloquial sense those words are used in US. Laws like these have broad support on both sides of the political spectrum. The fundamental problem is authoritarianism, which is a disease infesting both left and right.
pdonis 2y ago
The courts claim lots of things are constitutional when any reasonable person can see that the claim is nonsense. To give just a few examples from Supreme Court cases: Seizing property to turn it over to a private developer instead of for public use is a valid use of the government's eminent domain power (Kelo v. New London). Congress regulating farmers growing wheat on their own property for their own and their animals' consumption on the grounds is a valid regulation of interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause (Wickard v. Filburn). Allowing Congress to delegate legislative power to the executive branch, in clear violation of Article I of the Constitution, as long as Congress gives an "intelligible principle" (Hampton Co. v. United States). Ruling that exercising your Fifth Amendment right not to be a witness against yourself can be taken as evidence of guilt (Salinas v. Texas).

readthenotes1 2y ago

"bare arms" The Constitution, afaik, is silent on the matter of shirt sleeves. However, a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. The crime is that the States have given up on forming those well-regulated militias and that we have a continuous standing army in a Military-Industrial-Congressional complex whose corruption boggles the mind.

pdonis 2y ago
> the States have given up on forming those well-regulated militias The States claim that state-run National Guard units are the "well-regulated militias". Their claim is wrong, but not for the reason you imply. The reason their claim is wrong is that the 2nd Amendment is about the right of the people to keep and bear arms to resist a tyrannical government--any tyrannical government: not just the Federal government, but the State governments as well. If the States can organize a militia and then say individual citizens no longer have the right to keep and bear arms outside that organized militia, that defeats the purpose of the 2nd Amendment just as much as the Federal government having a standing army and claiming it's an organized militia.
- RajT88 2y ago
  That's actually incorrect. The second amendment is entirely about state militias, and anyone claiming it's related to resisting a tyrannical government hasn't actually read the documents they claim to have read. Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution outlines militias as a duty of congress, and the function of the militias (note: resisting a tyrannical government is not listed!) Article II, Section 2 defines the President as the commander in chief of the military and militias. The above is what the second amendment is making reference to. There are following acts of congress that clarify who gets to be in a militia: the militia acts of 1792, 1795, 1862 and 1903. These allow for people of different races and genders to join militias. The militia act of 1903 clarifies that there are different types of state militias: formal and informal. Formal is things like the National Guard, Texas Rangers, etc. Informal is - in times of emergency, the state can basically just round up a posse for the outlined purposes in Article 1, Section 8. The second amendment does guarantee personal firearm ownership under this possibility, connected to possible service in an informal militia. You're welcome.

pdonis 2y ago

> giving the right to bare arms in the absence of a formal militia That's not what the 2nd amendment says. It says "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". That doesn't mean that if the government decides to organize a formal militia, people's individual right to keep and bear arms goes away; that would defeat the whole purpose of the amendment, which is to enable the people to resist a tyrannical government, just as the Americans resisted British tyranny using their own individual arms. In other words, the "well-regulated militia" is the entire body of armed citizens. The "well-regulated" part means that the citizens themselves are supposed to regulate their own and each other's use of arms so that they are not used to promote tyranny instead of resist it.

thfuran 2y ago
>that would defeat the whole purpose of the amendment, which is to enable the people to resist a tyrannical government That doesn't really jive with the president being explicitly legally empowered to call upon the militia to quell insurrection.
- pdonis 2y ago
  Yes, it does, because the militia has more than one purpose. It's not only for resisting a tyrannical government. That's one of its purposes, but not the only one. Indeed, once the Declaration of Independence had been signed and published, one could argue that the United States were in fact organizing and using the militia to "repel invasion" by the British. But the militia was used before that happened, when the only grounds for its use was to resist tyrannical government by the British.
  - olliej 2y ago
    The only people claiming they want to fight a "tyrannical government" as their justification for dick extensions are the people who routinely try to remove the rights of others, and are the same people who have repeatedly tried to use force to overthrow the elected government when their candidate lost. Parroting that nonsense, when everyone knows that the reason they want unrestricted access to guns is just that they're idiots that made having guns their personality. The 2nd amendment says "A well regulated Militia", but the "I need guns to compensate for personal issues" people say you can't have any regulations or rules that would in anyway require the to actually be mentally or physically capable of supporting a free State. Again, the group of people arguing for the definition of the 2nd amendment that gives unrestricted access to guns are the people who routinely and consistently opposed the "free State" the 2nd amendment is ostensibly for, hell they generally oppose the 1st, 5th, 8th, 15th, 24th, and 28th amendments, so any proclaimed absolutism about their support for the constitution is dubious at best. I'd make a claim based on current commentary that these groups don't support any of the the constitution at all given their repeated and explicit disdain for articles 1 through 3 that define the core of the us government.