12 ms·

>The main concern is that something you did today may become a crime tomorrow Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional in the US.

by eurleif 13y ago

valarauca1 13y ago
A lot of unconstitutional practices are law in the US http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html
- rayiner 13y ago
  That page is about 95% bullshit. For example: the establishment clause prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or preventing the free exercise of religion. It doesn't prevent the government from simply monitoring religious and political groups that may be associated with illegal activity. That argument is ridiculous on its face: if the 1st amendment guarantees freedom of assembly, and gangs are assemblies of people, and monitoring is the same as restricting the freedom, does that mean the government can't monitor gangs? We know that's not what the 1st amendment means for the simple reason that the U.S.G. has performed internal counter-insurgency from the very beginning, and those practices were overseen by many of the same people that drafted the Constitution. There are not a "lot of unconstitutional practices" that are law in the U.S. There are a lot of people who read the words in the Bill of Rights extremely broadly and without historical or legal context, and then put up poorly-designed web pages about all the "unconstitutional" things they have discovered.
  - enoch_r 13y ago
    I don't disagree with your overall point, but "We know that's not what the 1st amendment means for the simple reason that the U.S.G. has performed internal counter-insurgency from the very beginning, and those practices were overseen by many of the same people that drafted the Constitution" is not strong evidence. The Alien and Sedition Acts[0] were passed in 1798 and were signed by (Federalist) John Adams. The next (Democratic-Republican) president, Thomas Jefferson, opposed them enough to pardon people who had been convicted under them, but then proceeded to prosecute several of his critics under the Acts before they expired. So yeah, a surprisingly bad beginning for free speech in the US. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
middleclick 13y ago
> Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional in the US. The Fourth Amendment protects US citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. Clearly that is being violated as the recent ruling on NSA data collection has pointed out.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  The NSA data collecting as of right now is in fact not illegal. There are still debates if it should be or not, but as of right now, it is not.
  - tsaoutourpants 13y ago
    Not according to a US District Judge who granted a preliminary injunction against the phone spying. Please don't parrot the politicians who claim legality. The fourth amendment is clear enough to prohibit this government conduct.
    - res0nat0r 13y ago
      One says yes, one says no, so therefore it is still up in the air. Until there is a definitive ruling on the matter you can't claim it is illegal...it is still a gray area until something like the Supreme Court definitively rules one way or another.
      - hnriot 13y ago
        while a gray area it is still legal. It's only illegal when the courts say it is, so de-facto it's legal. That's a pretty basic property of the US democratic system.
        tsaoutourpants 13y ago
        You're confusing "innocent until proven guilty" with a constitutional law question. There is no "presumption" that the executive branch is operating lawfully.
Ygg2 13y ago
> unconstitutional in the US So is warrant-less wiretapping, but that didn't stop NSA.
- dopamean 13y ago
  The point is that FBI cases go to court. You're not going to be prosecuted in a US court for something that was legal when you did it and illegal when it was found out.
  - Ygg2 13y ago
    My point once you start tolerating unconstitutional laws you undermine the whole purpose of the constitution. It must be the supreme law, or it's just another easily bypassed piece of legislation.
- thrownaway2424 13y ago
  The thing is the enforcement mechanism against unreasonable search is the state loses at court. If the state never brings a case they have more freedom. This is also the reason why the police need not advise you of your rights before interrogating you if they don't plan to charge you. If the feds bring unrelated cases based on these seizures I'm sure the admissibility of the evidence will be the main thing being argued in court.
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    It's just as likely that the questionably sourced information will be used to guide a parallel construction case.
    - thrownaway2424 13y ago
      Great, so you've read a blog and you learned a word. Good for you. There's still no civil opportunity to challenge government behavior in a vacuum. Article III Section 2 requires a "case or controversy."
wavefunction 13y ago
So is torture. And we've got laws against laundering money for criminal enterprises. If anything, the last 15 years has shown me that 'anything' is possible.
whatevsbro 13y ago
So is hauling Bradley Manning to a cell without due process and torturing him for years?
- slg 13y ago
  Whether you personally agree with the ethics of it, a person gives up several of their constitutional rights when they join the military.
  - whatevsbro 13y ago
    A person has no constitutional rights, he has natural ones. In other words, a piece of paper does not grant anyone any rights, not even the right to extort people (ie. to tax them).
    - phaus 13y ago
      Call them whatever kind of rights you want, but when Manning and everyone else (myself included) signed up for the Army, we waived them.
      - whatevsbro 13y ago
        What kind of things you can voluntarily, bindingly agree to is another matter. I just wanted to point out that the constitution has nothing to do with our rights as human beings, and can't remove or grant any. It's wrong to think about rights as something the government gives you - actually the government only violates them.
        phaus 13y ago
        A total absence of government would be just as destructive to your natural rights as a government with too much power over its citizens. The government didn't grant you the rights, but in some situations its very capable of preserving them. There are two main problems with the United States, the first is that too many of us are ready and willing to trade personal freedom for economic and physical safety. The second is that we allowed money to control politics.
strathmeyer 13y ago
I wasn't aware of any Constitutional rights that I as a US citizen should feel like I should actually have. I just know that I can't complain about it or upset the people in power, or else I'll be killed, put in without cause or trial jail, or have my property confiscated.
drjesusphd 13y ago
What about the behavior of the NSA and their guardians in Congress and the courts makes you think they give a flying fuck?

>The main concern is that something you did today may become a crime tomorrow Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional in the US.

by eurleif 13y ago

>The main concern is that something you did today may become a crime tomorrow Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional in the US.

valarauca1 13y ago

A lot of unconstitutional practices are law in the US http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html

rayiner 13y ago
That page is about 95% bullshit. For example: the establishment clause prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or preventing the free exercise of religion. It doesn't prevent the government from simply monitoring religious and political groups that may be associated with illegal activity. That argument is ridiculous on its face: if the 1st amendment guarantees freedom of assembly, and gangs are assemblies of people, and monitoring is the same as restricting the freedom, does that mean the government can't monitor gangs? We know that's not what the 1st amendment means for the simple reason that the U.S.G. has performed internal counter-insurgency from the very beginning, and those practices were overseen by many of the same people that drafted the Constitution. There are not a "lot of unconstitutional practices" that are law in the U.S. There are a lot of people who read the words in the Bill of Rights extremely broadly and without historical or legal context, and then put up poorly-designed web pages about all the "unconstitutional" things they have discovered.
- enoch_r 13y ago
  I don't disagree with your overall point, but "We know that's not what the 1st amendment means for the simple reason that the U.S.G. has performed internal counter-insurgency from the very beginning, and those practices were overseen by many of the same people that drafted the Constitution" is not strong evidence. The Alien and Sedition Acts[0] were passed in 1798 and were signed by (Federalist) John Adams. The next (Democratic-Republican) president, Thomas Jefferson, opposed them enough to pardon people who had been convicted under them, but then proceeded to prosecute several of his critics under the Acts before they expired. So yeah, a surprisingly bad beginning for free speech in the US. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

middleclick 13y ago

> Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional in the US. The Fourth Amendment protects US citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. Clearly that is being violated as the recent ruling on NSA data collection has pointed out.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
res0nat0r 13y ago
The NSA data collecting as of right now is in fact not illegal. There are still debates if it should be or not, but as of right now, it is not.
- tsaoutourpants 13y ago
  Not according to a US District Judge who granted a preliminary injunction against the phone spying. Please don't parrot the politicians who claim legality. The fourth amendment is clear enough to prohibit this government conduct.
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    One says yes, one says no, so therefore it is still up in the air. Until there is a definitive ruling on the matter you can't claim it is illegal...it is still a gray area until something like the Supreme Court definitively rules one way or another.
    - hnriot 13y ago
      while a gray area it is still legal. It's only illegal when the courts say it is, so de-facto it's legal. That's a pretty basic property of the US democratic system.
      - tsaoutourpants 13y ago
        You're confusing "innocent until proven guilty" with a constitutional law question. There is no "presumption" that the executive branch is operating lawfully.

Ygg2 13y ago

> unconstitutional in the US So is warrant-less wiretapping, but that didn't stop NSA.

dopamean 13y ago
The point is that FBI cases go to court. You're not going to be prosecuted in a US court for something that was legal when you did it and illegal when it was found out.
- Ygg2 13y ago
  My point once you start tolerating unconstitutional laws you undermine the whole purpose of the constitution. It must be the supreme law, or it's just another easily bypassed piece of legislation.
thrownaway2424 13y ago
The thing is the enforcement mechanism against unreasonable search is the state loses at court. If the state never brings a case they have more freedom. This is also the reason why the police need not advise you of your rights before interrogating you if they don't plan to charge you. If the feds bring unrelated cases based on these seizures I'm sure the admissibility of the evidence will be the main thing being argued in court.
- nitrogen 13y ago
  It's just as likely that the questionably sourced information will be used to guide a parallel construction case.
  - thrownaway2424 13y ago
    Great, so you've read a blog and you learned a word. Good for you. There's still no civil opportunity to challenge government behavior in a vacuum. Article III Section 2 requires a "case or controversy."

wavefunction 13y ago

So is torture. And we've got laws against laundering money for criminal enterprises. If anything, the last 15 years has shown me that 'anything' is possible.

whatevsbro 13y ago

So is hauling Bradley Manning to a cell without due process and torturing him for years?

slg 13y ago
Whether you personally agree with the ethics of it, a person gives up several of their constitutional rights when they join the military.
- whatevsbro 13y ago
  A person has no constitutional rights, he has natural ones. In other words, a piece of paper does not grant anyone any rights, not even the right to extort people (ie. to tax them).
  - phaus 13y ago
    Call them whatever kind of rights you want, but when Manning and everyone else (myself included) signed up for the Army, we waived them.
    - whatevsbro 13y ago
      What kind of things you can voluntarily, bindingly agree to is another matter. I just wanted to point out that the constitution has nothing to do with our rights as human beings, and can't remove or grant any. It's wrong to think about rights as something the government gives you - actually the government only violates them.
      - phaus 13y ago
        A total absence of government would be just as destructive to your natural rights as a government with too much power over its citizens. The government didn't grant you the rights, but in some situations its very capable of preserving them. There are two main problems with the United States, the first is that too many of us are ready and willing to trade personal freedom for economic and physical safety. The second is that we allowed money to control politics.

strathmeyer 13y ago

I wasn't aware of any Constitutional rights that I as a US citizen should feel like I should actually have. I just know that I can't complain about it or upset the people in power, or else I'll be killed, put in without cause or trial jail, or have my property confiscated.

drjesusphd 13y ago

What about the behavior of the NSA and their guardians in Congress and the courts makes you think they give a flying fuck?