Posted on 04/19/2014 2:49:04 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Thursday in an interview conducted at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg talked about their views of the First Amendment. Moderator Marvin Kalb questioned Scalia about whether the NSA wiretapping cloud be conceivably be in violation of the Constitution:
Justice Antonin Scalia said, "No because it's not absolute. As Ruth has said there are very few freedoms that are absolute. I mean your person is protected by the Fourth Amendment but as I pointed out when you board a plane someone can pass his hands all over your body that's a terrible intrusion, but given the danger that it's guarding against it's not an unreasonable intrusion. And it can be the same thing with acquiring this data that is regarded as effects. That's why I say its foolish to have us make the decision because I don't know how serious the danger is in this NSA stuff, I really don't."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
“It is funny that 99% of Free Republic was cheering for Patriot Act back then, calling libtards as anti-Americans for not going with the fed gubmint schemes.”
There were many of us who opposed the so called Patriot Act on this forum. I think 99% is a bit high, but yes there were many Freepers who supported it.
Sorry, Justice Scalia, but it’s a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.
“I don’t have an issue with the NSA spying on anyone outside of the United States. They have no business spying on American citizens on U.S. soil.”
Think of it this way: the toilet has overflowed and shit has started flowing; here you are saying that the shit should not touch the carpet.
There is nothing reasonable about the TSA or anything it does.
Please remember that the Supreme Court has reversed more than 150 of earlier Supreme Court decisions on natural law. Is that what you would consider as someone being consistent and reliable in interpreting the Constitution?
“The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, it’s meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted. it means now”. So said the Supreme Court in South Carolina v United States in 1905
I disagree with your analogy. The NSA has a duty to keep an eye on foreign interests who plot against us. We can’t prevent attacks on the homeland if we don’t know about them.
That duty does not outweigh the constitutional rights of American citizens.
>>It is funny that 99% of Free Republic was cheering for Patriot Act back then, calling libtards as anti-Americans for not going with the fed gubmint schemes.<<
I was part of the 1% and I haven’t changed my opinion.
Even if it weren’t, the 10th says we reserve the power to declare it unacceptable.
Me too. I remember Nixon too well.
“The NSA has a duty to keep an eye on foreign interests who plot against us.”
The NSA think that they have a duty to keep an eye on all who might plot against us.
“We can’t prevent attacks on the homeland if we don’t know about them.”
That is why they are keeping an eye on everything, not just foreign activities.
“That duty does not outweigh the constitutional rights of American citizens.”
This is what I meant by shit and carpet analogy.
Would the judge agree that the government can open your mail before you receive it?
He has been trending hard Statist for a while now.
“I’m in a small minority that thinks the Supreme Court is ill equipped to make any decisions.”
I’m an attorney. I assure you they’re less equipped than you think. They’re more politician than judge, and have a propensity to ignore the law when it suits them.
They do ... if by "all" they mean those who aren't American citizens residing on U.S. soil.
I doubt it.
IANAL, but it does seem that the ability to duck, bob, and weave increases as the level of a Judge increases.
Thanks for the link.
after 9/11/01 the responsible agencies definitely needed to be restructured and George Bush was a good one to tackle the problem because he used the military and intelligence leaders to make it happen.
But, since then all sorts of changes incurred to make the system dangerous to the everyday citizen. As an example, when Bush left office, NSA could only monitor calls which had a foreign leg. Now both legs can be domestic. That is a big difference.
Jefferson is not a good person to quote....because he usually says the contrary someplace else.
“They do ... if by “all” they mean those who aren’t American citizens residing on U.S. soil.”
All means all, not just foreign citizens. At least that is their rationale... once it was signed off, the bureaucratic agencies will have life of their own. Give them an inch...
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.