Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge's laptop ruling challenges the Constitution - and your privacy
Fox News ^ | 1/25/2014 | Kim Komando

Posted on 01/25/2014 8:04:59 AM PST by madison10

It's pretty obvious that we as a society are now made up of two groups. There are those who, for better or worse, have moved their lives into the digital realm, and those who haven't.

I would like to introduce you to someone in the latter category. His name is Edward Korman and he is a federal judge in New York state. He had a case before him involving a U.S. citizen – a Ph.D. student at McGill University in Montreal – who had his computer confiscated while returning to the States. The judge ruled, sweepingly, that, yes, the federal government had a right to confiscate laptops at the border without probable cause...

...It was odd – there's surprisingly little talk about the ruling online. (It came down on New Year's Eve afternoon.) The more you read, the weirder the rules are. The so-called "border exemption" extends 100 miles inland from the border. That includes the population of the Eastern Seaboard, Miami, Houston, the west coast, and Chicago.

I wanted to find a smart legal mind who'd considered the issue. I finally found someone who had. He came up with a simple encapsulation to prevent this sort of intrusion into our private lives for no reason. It went like this:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized...

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: canada; judge; laptop; michigan; privacy; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last
Not sure WHAT this means for a state like Michigan where our whole eastern side borders with a foreign country.
1 posted on 01/25/2014 8:04:59 AM PST by madison10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer

ping!


2 posted on 01/25/2014 8:12:42 AM PST by Albion Wilde (The less a man knows, the more certain he is that he knows it all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madison10
AFAIK, the 4th Amendment has never been considered to apply to those entering the USA from another country. If it did, every search of luggage, vehicle or ship would require a warrant.
3 posted on 01/25/2014 8:14:38 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madison10
"Not sure WHAT this means for a state like Michigan where our whole eastern side borders with a foreign country."

I suspect it means the same thing as any state that borders the Atlantic or Pacific ocean. It is but one more step to have no presumption of privacy at all and that is coming.

4 posted on 01/25/2014 8:16:25 AM PST by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

islamists excepted, no doubt.


5 posted on 01/25/2014 8:18:55 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: madison10

The Supremes have to date ruled that the “border exemption” applies only at ports, border crossing sites and functional equivalents such as international airports.

I believe books, papers and other personal items have always been subject to search when entering this country. Electronic media, while likely to contain a lot more information, are simply an extrapolation of this practice.


6 posted on 01/25/2014 8:20:09 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madison10

Yea, I’m about 120 miles from the border and work often brings me inside the zone. I no longer go out of the country.

I understand the principle behind the outrage but personally I’m well beyond it. I think that Øbozo is an incipient tyrant and dictator. He’ll tell you himself that he’s impatient for Congress to do his will and so he’s got his pen and his cellphone.

So when I travel I use a laptop that has only the bare essentials. No cached passwords, no links to personal accounts, and no questionable documents. If they want in I’ll protest but if they succeed then good luck getting past the PGP disk encryption. And even if they do then I’ve set up a booby-trap account that wipes the data folder if you log onto it.

I conduct my business as though I’m operating in enemy territory because.....I’m operating in enemy territory. ;’)


7 posted on 01/25/2014 8:20:32 AM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madison10

I believe that the US, like the UK, now has an unwritten Constitution. It’s flexible. It suits the needs of the decision-makers. Your inalienable rights have become unimportant.


8 posted on 01/25/2014 8:22:21 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (Anti-Complacency League! Baby!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

About a year ago I returned from a Caribbean country. For whatever reason the customs guys chose to give me and my baggage the full treatment.

Since I was carrying a large number of odd electronic instruments I had used on a job, this took several hours of me explaining the purpose of and demonstrating the use of each instrument.

It was a serious pain, as it obviously caused me to miss a flight, but it never crossed my mind that it was a violation of my constitutional rights.


9 posted on 01/25/2014 8:24:05 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GeronL; Revolting cat!

“The founding fathers never explicitly discussed laptop computers.” < /some wise latina probably >


10 posted on 01/25/2014 8:29:45 AM PST by a fool in paradise ("Health care is too important to be left to the government.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

The protections of the Constitution are no longer upheld. The laws of this nation are no longer upheld.

We are living in a socialist dictatorship with the illusion of law.


11 posted on 01/25/2014 8:30:39 AM PST by a fool in paradise ("Health care is too important to be left to the government.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: madison10

someone’s going to make millions with a hard drive destruction algorithm that can be remotely activated, say from a keyfob. “Yeah, sure - go ahead and confiscate my computer!”


12 posted on 01/25/2014 8:37:44 AM PST by bigbob (The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly. Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madison10

The USA is no longer a nation of laws, it is a nation of men. And those “men” in fedgov positions of authority are tyrants.

Time to water the Tree.


13 posted on 01/25/2014 8:46:57 AM PST by 43north (BHO: 50% black, 50% white, 100% RED.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

USB’s are cheap. Don’t use a hard drive.


14 posted on 01/25/2014 8:47:26 AM PST by EQAndyBuzz ("The GOP fights its own base with far more vigor than it employs in fighting the Dims.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: madison10
Not sure WHAT this means for a state like Michigan where our whole eastern side borders with a foreign country.

Try also Wa., Or.,Id.,Mt.,Nd.,Mn.,Wi., Ak.,Ca.,Az.,Nm.,Tx,La.,Ms.,Al.,Fl.,Ga.,SC.,Nc.,Va.,Md.,De.,Nj.,Ny.,Ct.,Ri., Ma., Me. etc. just to name a few. You get what I mean. The whole damn country falls under this unconstitutional ruling.

15 posted on 01/25/2014 8:54:05 AM PST by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madison10

New practice.

Backup your laptop BEFORE YOU LEAVE THE COUNTRY.


16 posted on 01/25/2014 8:55:40 AM PST by G Larry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madison10

How bout if you live withing 100 miles of the geographical center of the United States?

Liking Kansas more and more every day.


17 posted on 01/25/2014 9:06:04 AM PST by Delta 21 (If you like your freedom, you can keep your freedom. Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madison10

If you like your laptop you can keep it. Period.
If you like your privacy you can keep it. Period.
If you like your Constitution you can keep it. Period.


18 posted on 01/25/2014 9:09:23 AM PST by Thom Pain (If you like your country you can keep it. Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Sherman Logan wrote: “It was a serious pain, as it obviously caused me to miss a flight, but it never crossed my mind that it was a violation of my constitutional rights.”

The only reason it would NOT cross your mind would be that it was NEVER in your mind that such action would be in contravention of the very fundamental law of this grand experiment. Which would indicate that SL never read the Constitution and Amendments.

Not knowing SL’s background, it does seem that is a sad commentary on the state of American Education.

I fear the libtards are winning, still. We have a significant challenge ahead, to undue the damage of three generations of fedgov meddling in public education.


19 posted on 01/25/2014 9:21:00 AM PST by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2016; I pray we make it that long.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PubliusMM

So you think there are, or should be, Constitutional protection against search or seizure at the borders?

I’m quite familiar with the Constitution, thank you.

Until I have passed through customs, I am not legally in the USA and therefore the 4th Amendment does not apply. Unless for some odd reason you think the Constitution applies throughout the world.

I would be interested in any reference you can find to 4A’s warrant requirement’s EVER having applied to customs. I doubt you can find one.


20 posted on 01/25/2014 9:32:07 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: madison10

This is what they do. They swear that they respect the Constitution, but then find ways to make it invalid.

It’s the American way. Deny you’re doing it. Give it a nice-sounding name. Go right on doing what you always did.


21 posted on 01/25/2014 9:41:28 AM PST by I want the USA back (Media: completely irresponsible traitors. Complicit in the destruction of our country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PubliusMM

The Constitution means what it means, not what you (or I) think it ought to mean.

If you think searches of persons and property at the borders should be prohibited without a warrant, may I suggest the Constitutional provision for making such a change? Pass an amendment or law.

Don’t sit around claiming the Constitution is a blank document that (oddly enough) just happens to mean whatever you want it to. That is the living Constitution theory, and it has been the single greatest factor in the decline of our actual Constitutional government.


22 posted on 01/25/2014 9:43:31 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
So you think there are, or should be, Constitutional protection against search or seizure at the borders?

As an American citizen, yes, you should have the same protections from our government no matter where you are. Just because you go to another country doesn't mean you give up any of your rights. (You may have to live by another country's rules, but the US has no place in enforcing that.) For foreign citizens, yes, they don't fall under US jurisdiction the same way citizens do, and they should be susceptible to searches as required.
23 posted on 01/25/2014 9:51:26 AM PST by Svartalfiar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
"Unless for some odd reason you think the Constitution applies throughout the world."

Do you still have a right to trial by Jury if you committed a capital crime like Murder in the USA and are indicted but are not within its borders. And since you are not within the borders of the United States is it OK that the Government assassinates you rather than go through with a messy trial?

24 posted on 01/25/2014 10:00:27 AM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
Do you still have a right to trial by Jury if you committed a capital crime like Murder in the USA and are indicted but are not within its borders.

Very, very odd "reasoning."

If I commit a crime, murder or otherwise, in the USA but flee to a foreign country, I can indeed be indicted for the crime. However, I believe I would have to be physically returned to the USA to be tried. So I'm not sure what your point might be.

If I wage war on the United States I would expect them to return the favor, particularly if I'm overseas and in a location not amenable to arrest and extradition. This presents obvious problems with definitions and designation, but I find nowhere in the Constitution that a US citizen engaged in warfare on the USA has special privileges requiring him to be arrested and tried, rather than killed in the same way as a non-citizen engaged in the same activities.

IOW, if I'm in Afghanistan shooting at US soldiers, I expect them to respond in exactly the same way as if I'm an Afghan shooting at them.

25 posted on 01/25/2014 10:26:01 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

That is a fantastic idea. I wish some smart person would develop it. If such a thing exists, I don’t know about it, but I’m not that educated on technology.


26 posted on 01/25/2014 10:27:51 AM PST by mrsmel (One Who Can See)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Svartalfiar

I’m still waiting for somebody to post something showing that 4A requirements with regard to warrants have EVER applied for customs inspections.

Unless such evidence is produced, it’s pretty difficult to claim that the present administration is removing previously accepted rights.

My understanding is that longstanding law is that routine searches can be undertaken for no reason other than a random check. Non-routine, more rigorous searches require some degree of reasonable suspicion, but certainly no warrant.

I don’t claim to be an expert on this subject, and I’m certainly willing to be convinced I’m wrong, but I’d like something vaguely resembling evidence.


27 posted on 01/25/2014 10:30:39 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
So you think there are, or should be, Constitutional protection against search or seizure at the borders?

It must; the restraints of the Constitution are obviously on the government, not the people.

Until I have passed through customs, I am not legally in the USA and therefore the 4th Amendment does not apply. Unless for some odd reason you think the Constitution applies throughout the world.

Question: if you are traveling abroad, and the US Government decides that you've committed a crime, can it kill you in contravention to the 5th and 6th amendments which guarantee: due-process of law, that all prosecution of capitol offenses be validated by presentment/indictment of a Grand Jury, that the accused should have jury trial where the offense occurred, that the accused should be "informed of the nature and cause of the accusation", and that he should be able to mount a defense?

28 posted on 01/25/2014 10:59:14 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

I’ve been waiting close on two hours for some evidence that 4A warrant requirements have EVER been considered as applying to customs inspections.

I guess I’ll have a long wait.


29 posted on 01/25/2014 11:03:35 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
If you think searches of persons and property at the borders should be prohibited without a warrant, may I suggest the Constitutional provision for making such a change

It already exists:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The warrant could be issued for a particular place (say, the airport) and particularly describe the things to be seized (say, opiates).
30 posted on 01/25/2014 11:03:44 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

AFAIK, customs searches have always been exempted from 4A.

If you think this is unconstitutional, you should have taken it up a couple of centuries ago with G. Washington, who set the precedent.


31 posted on 01/25/2014 11:08:58 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
I’ve been waiting close on two hours for some evidence that 4A warrant requirements have EVER been considered as applying to customs inspections.

I might be tempted, but there is a fundamental difference between freight and people -- the Constitution recognizes people as having rights (e.g. the 4th amendment).
Thus the 4th doesn't apply to cargo-ships -- which would be the overwhelming number of customs cases.

The other way to look at the issue is this: what reason did the government agent have to confiscate the laptop? If he were called in to court, what would his under-oath answer be? (a) Would it justify the confiscation? and (b) would it match with the truth (i.e. would the agent's testimony be faithful or a perjury)? — this is why warrants are a good thing, even for the government agent, it provides documentation of the circumstances/events as well as acknowledging the use of power as legitimate.

32 posted on 01/25/2014 11:12:13 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Here’s an interesting article on 4A and borders.

http://www.law2.byu.edu/jpl/papers/v19n2_Jon_Adams.pdf

The border exemption is based on the Constitutional power to ““to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” To do so requires prevention of smuggling and entry of unauthorized persons.


33 posted on 01/25/2014 11:12:23 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
"However, I believe I would have to be physically returned to the USA to be tried. So I'm not sure what your point might be."

Why would you have to be returned to the USA. You claimed that the Constitution does not extend beyond the shores of our nation.

Why can't Obama send a drone out to blow you and your sailboat up as you flee in international waters from a murder rap wherein you killed Nancy Pelosi? I mean if as you say your Constitutional Protections end at the border...

34 posted on 01/25/2014 11:13:03 AM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
the 4th Amendment has never been considered to apply to those entering the USA from another country. If it did, every search of luggage, vehicle or ship would require a warrant.

Funny I missed that section in the 4th Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

35 posted on 01/25/2014 11:15:58 AM PST by Lockbox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
The border exemption is based on the Constitutional power to ““to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” To do so requires prevention of smuggling and entry of unauthorized persons.

Funny, that clause is also used to regulate intrastate commerce [Wickard], and non-commerce [Raich]. — in fact, if the federal government tried to claim the same commerce-clause powers in foreign countries as they do in the states it would be regarded as an act of war... and the enforcement thereof would be either the waging of that war, or the post-war subjugation of the defeated. So then, it should be considered that the War on Drugs is waging war against the several states and therefore definitionally treason.

36 posted on 01/25/2014 11:16:45 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

The President is Commander in Chief and is constitutionally empowered to wage war on the enemies of the United States, especially when authorized to do so by Congress.

He may have power to kill people for other reasons, but does not have the legal right to do so.

To carry your theory to another level, if I (an American citizen) were part of a terrorist group that murdered Nancy (or any other American) in a terrorist attack, after fleeing abroad is there any reason I should be treated any differently from any other enemy of the USA simply because I’m a citizen? Should my compadres be subject to military attack as illegal combatants, but I must be arrested and returned for trial by jury? Why?

None of which has anything to do with whether I trust the present occupant of the WH to make such decisions.


37 posted on 01/25/2014 11:19:47 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
My example has nothing to do with terrorism unless you think giving the POTUS the sole power to decide who is and is not considered a terrorist.

Let us say you had a business deal with Nancy and she stiffed you for 10 million bucks. You get angry and in a fit of rage hit her across the face and she falls and hits her head and dies. Regardless you flee on you sailboat and Obama hears the cry from Chuckie Schumer as he whips the populace up and they scream for your blood.

Now explain WHY Obama can't just blow you ass to Kingdom Come with a drone strike?

You claim the Constitution stops at the border.

It either does or it doesn't. What part of the Constitution stops Obama from doing such? No one will know outside of a few military people and the Joint Chiefs. No foreign government will know. So can the POTUS waste your ass and then go have lunch? OR does the Joint Chiefs have a duty to say Nope Can't do it because it violates this man's Constitutional Rights?

38 posted on 01/25/2014 11:31:44 AM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
To carry your theory to another level, if I (an American citizen) were part of a terrorist group that murdered Nancy (or any other American) in a terrorist attack, after fleeing abroad is there any reason I should be treated any differently from any other enemy of the USA simply because I’m a citizen? Should my compadres be subject to military attack as illegal combatants, but I must be arrested and returned for trial by jury? Why?

Ah, but what if you weren't the murderer and this was just the story told to justify murdering you without trial?
Moreover, would killing her be waging war?
You put far too much faith that power and legal exceptions will be a force for good and not evil.

39 posted on 01/25/2014 11:33:08 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

Fleeing on my sailboat I suspect the Navy, or even the Coasties, could intercept and return me for trial. :)

I think the relevant issue is that the Constitution does not grant the President any such power. So while he might very well be able to do it, he would have no legal right to do so.

I do not claim that there are no constitutional restrictions on the president outside the USA, only that 4A does not apply for customs searches. Unless someone can find some evidence that warrants have EVER been required for customs searches, I think my point stands. This is not a new infringement on constitutional rights by the Obama administration, it is an extension of what the law has been since the Founding. Possibly an over-extension, to be sure.

As another example, the Coast Guard routinely stops, boards and searches ships. No warrant needed.

A couple years ago, a friend and I were returning from a 3 hour tour on his 26’ sailboat when the Coasties pulled up. They came aboard and searched pretty thoroughly. No warrant. This was FL coast.


40 posted on 01/25/2014 11:40:02 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Can constitutional powers be misused? You bet.

Do we want a warrant and hearing required for every firefight in Afghanistan? I thought most freepers believed the ROIs there are too strict at the present time.

My point, to the extent I have one, is that not every potential misuse of government power can be prevented by requiring a court hearing. In fact, I’d contend the over-legalization of American society is a huge problem.


41 posted on 01/25/2014 11:43:42 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Do we want a warrant and hearing required for every firefight in Afghanistan?

Who even implied that?
Seriously, that's just stupid.

Can constitutional powers be misused? You bet.

And so can contra-constitutional powers — actually it can be harder to fight extra-constitutional powers, precisely because they're outside the confines of the Constitution… and oft they are legally justified on precedent, elevating precedent above the Constitution.

42 posted on 01/25/2014 11:49:16 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
"Fleeing on my sailboat I suspect the Navy, or even the Coasties, could intercept and return me for trial. :)"

Who would give that order? Navy picks up someone that is not an enemy combatant? Have you heard of the Term Posse Commitatus?

Coasties have to be ordered to do so. But instead Obama decides to frag you with a drone.

You claim the POTUS doesn't have the Constitutional Authority to do so. Show me where it sez so.

43 posted on 01/25/2014 11:53:09 AM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Who even implied that?

It's implied in any claim that American citizens cannot be killed by US armed forces overseas.

For this "right" to be implemented, fairly obviously a hearing must be held to determine citizenship status before a soldier returns fire.

If US citizens aren't to be targeted, how do you know whether a possible target is a citizen without such a hearing?

BTW, the above is an example of trying to carry an argument to its logical conclusion to demonstrate its flaws. However, I see no reason why those planning and launching attacks on us should be treated differently based on citizenship status. If we catch em, we can try them for treason in addition to any other crimes, but that's about the sole distinction I can see.

I agree with you about extra-constitutional powers being dangerous.

In 1901 the Supremes ruled that the Constitution does not always necessarily follow the flag, in Downes v. Bidwell, even when the government is in control of territory. How much less does our Constitution apply in foreign countries?

44 posted on 01/25/2014 11:59:43 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
You seriously think Posse Comitatus applies outside the boundaries and territorial waters of the USA?

You claim the POTUS doesn't have the Constitutional Authority to do so. Show me where it sez so.

I said the Constitution grants him no such power. I did not say it prohibits him from doing so.

45 posted on 01/25/2014 12:02:04 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
I said the Constitution grants him no such power. I did not say it prohibits him from doing so.

Oh OK then so it has no bearing on the example.

Explain why Obama can do it then. Why can't he frag you and your sailboat?

You say the Constitution does not extend beyond the borders. So then if we hold to your interpretation he can do it and go have lunch and that is the end of it even though the joint chiefs are screaming that he committed a crime.

46 posted on 01/25/2014 12:06:33 PM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

I think the hysteria over drones is a bit silly.

Legally, a drone is just a really, really long-distance sniper.

If it is legal for a target to be taken out via an on-site sniper, then it’s legal to use a drone to do the same. The person pulling the trigger or authorizing firing is the person legally responsible, whether he/she is on the ground in Yemen or in his bedroom in Tampa.

If the use of a sniper is not legal, then neither is the use of a drone.

It is, IMO, a non-issue. The technology changes nothing legally. Or morally, for that matter.


47 posted on 01/25/2014 12:11:31 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

The Constitution does not contain a lengthy list of what the President is not allowed to do, though it does contain such a list for the Congress. (Which is mostly ignored.)

The President is authorized to command US military forces and to enforce the laws of the United States. When he steps beyond those bounds, he has exceeded his constitutional authority.

Is there any practical means of enforcing restrictions on him? Not much.

But I doubt requiring court hearings to authorize drone attacks or covert action is a practical way of solving the problem.

What is your solution to what you see as the problem of the President launching drone attacks overseas? What is the check or balance on his power you think should be implemented?


48 posted on 01/25/2014 12:16:46 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
I" think the hysteria over drones is a bit silly."

I think you keep waffling and throwing straw man arguments because you can't answer the question.

So let us cut to the chase.

You have been accused of a capital crime Murder though it was an accident.

You flee on you sailboat and are in international waters. And just so we can move past the obvious next bit of deflection we will say that also Obama is in international waters on his very own sailboat he purchased BEFORE he entered public office. (Thus we remove Obama from the United States for this example) The joint chiefs have joined him and they get the word you are fleeing.

Obama knowing a trial would be an embarrassing affair because his wife was also involved in the deal with You and Nancy. He decides to have the Navy launch a drone to find you. But since you think drones somehow invalidate the example we will instead say the president wants to see a live fire exercise on the new stealth cruiser that is a few thousand yards away and he tells them the target is an old sailboat which is nearby and happens to be yours. They fire and your boat and you are obliterated because well drones take time and they make you uncomfortable for this example.

The orders come from the president who is not in the USA nor is the ship that fired Nor is the Joint Chiefs who relayed those orders directly from the President to the captain of the stealth ship.

Did the Constitution have any authority over any of those actions committed by the POTUS the Joint Chiefs or the Captain of the ship who fired on your boat at the time they were outside the borders of the USA?

49 posted on 01/25/2014 12:26:08 PM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
>> Who even implied that?
>
> It's implied in any claim that American citizens cannot be killed by US armed forces overseas.

Nobody claimed that US Armed forces cannot kill American citizens — you have obviously never been in the military.
If someone's shooting at you, what do you do? Shoot back!
You always have the right to defend yourself, your fellow soldiers, and allied forces.

Heck, even a jury-trial would find a soldier innocent for returning fire and killing the attacker.

But all of those are fundamentally different from the issues being discussed here: if the government can paint you as 'terrorist' and use that to deny such things as the 4th, 5th and 6th amendment requirements, then how long will it be before protesting the government will itself be punished by death? And they can do it in subtle ways, with the NSA's domestic-spying, the IRS's capricious rule-changes, the DEA/BATFE/FBI/ICE's willingness to conduct the state-sponsored terrorism (and likely easiest Treason case in 100 years) known as Fast & Furious.

The War on Terror will finish off the last vestiges of liberty and rule of law that the War on Drugs left behind.

50 posted on 01/25/2014 12:29:15 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson