Posted on 11/23/2001 2:58:00 PM PST by Smogger
I believe that I have the right to walk out into a public place,
conduct myself in a lawful manner, go home,
and never be required to explain details of my life to anyone.
Why set the limit at $10,000?
What reason does anyone have to walk around with $5,000 in cash?..."
# 121 by exodus
*******************
To: exodus
Why set the limit at $10,000?
What reason does anyone have to walk around with $5,000 in cash?
I am sure you are being facetious with this comment.
The $10,000 is an arbitrary number that has been used for years.
This is not a new law..." # 124 by JD86
************
Of course it's not new law, JD86.
That's why I've mentioned the "War on Crime," and the "War on Drugs."
Like the "War on Terrorism," both of those un-Constitutional "wars"
were used to violate the freedom of good American citizens.
I'm not any happier knowing that an "arbitrary" (meaning "without reason") number
has been used to stick government noses into people's lives.
I was NOT being facetious.
What difference does it make what dollar amount
the government decides is more money than I need?
If the number is one million, a limit has been set on my prosperity.
Government that decides for me how much money I need is a tyranny.
Please explain how cash in my pocket became a public financial transaction?
To: exodus
"I NEVER said you didn't have a right to your property.
You are changing the argument in midstream.
You were arguing you had a total right to privacy that could not be infringed upon.
I am saying you have the right to privacy in your own home...
and a more limited right to privacy in public.
In this case, your right to privacy is limited by the need of law enforcement
to track large cash transactions.
If you don't want anyone to know you have the money,
don't spend it all in one place in one day. # 124 by JD86
************
I'm glad that you are willing to grant me the right of privacy in my own home.
However, it wasn't really nessessary, as that right was already granted to me by God.
How did I change the argument?
I said that the various "Wars" have been excuses
for government infringement on our freedom.
Everyone, and I include myself, has a right to total privacy.
The exception to that rule is enumerated in the 4th Amendment:
if there is probable cause to suspect involvement of a crime,
supported by the oath of an accuser,
a man can be required to bend the rule of privacy to defend himself.
Even then, he is required to reveal only details
directly involved in the charges of misconduct.
Going outside does not negate my right to privacy.
Privacy does not mean "unseen."
Privacy means that my life is my own.
I don't have to explain myself to you, to the police, or to the President.
Law enforcement is a branch of government, the Executive Branch.
(The President is the top law enforcement officer.)
My right to privacy is not limited by the "need" of law enforcement.
The "need" of law enforcement to violate my privacy is limited by the 4th Amendment.
That's a big difference, JD86.
How much "junk mail" do you get each day? Do you know what a "cookie" is? Your so called "private transactions" are a myth in your own mind. As to cash transactions, yes anyone that regularly takes 10 grand in cash to go shopping warrants suspicion given the norms of this nation's market economy. Look, just write a check. This is NOT rocket science and it is NOT an infringement on whatever rights you seem to feel are being violated OR pay in thousand dollar bills who cares.
To: Dr.Deth Would Alexander Hamilton be an acceptable authority for you?
# 137 by Texasforever
************
What did Alexander Hamilton have to say
about abuse of governmental authority?
To: TheOtherOne
How much "junk mail" do you get each day?
Do you know what a "cookie" is?
Your so called "private transactions" are a myth in your own mind.
As to cash transactions...Look, just write a check.
This is NOT rocket science
and it is NOT an infringement on whatever rights
you seem to feel are being violated..."
# 146 by Texasforever
************
Texasforever, "private transactions" does not mean "unseen transactions."
"Private" in that context means "not government"
Yes, people can get your private address.
Yes, cookies can record your private actions.
A man sitting behind you can listen to your private conversation.
Texasforever, having someone violate your privacy does not remove your right to privacy.
You have a "right to privacy" anywhere you have the EXPECTATION of privacy. You do not have that expectation in Wal-Mart.
RETAILERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!
Is it any wonder that his face is red
Kawliga, that poor ol' wooden head.
I gave up some months ago...somehow it just doesn't matter as much anymore. To no avail?
Second verse, same as the first.
Was there a Congressional Declaration of War on the Barbary Pirates? ( Maybe not!)
by Texasforever
What We Have Been Told About the Declaration Of War On The Barbary Pirates Appears To Be Wrong
One of the more frustrating debates about this “war on terrorism” being discussed on the forum has been the legitimacy of Bush’s recent actions in light of the fact that Congress has not formally issued a “Declaration of War”. It is argued by a large contingent of libertarians and paleo-conservatives that all military actions and presidential powers exercised as the Commander in Chief in war time require this formal declaration by Congress to meet Constitutional muster. The other side, the “Bushies” for lack of a better term, argue that this is a different circumstance from any we have ever faced and that we are at “war” with a virtually faceless enemy and we have no idea from one day to the next where and in what country he will rear his ugly head and in which country we will be forced to assert military power in order to stop future terrorist activity...
From my research I have found that indeed war was declared on the Barbary Pirates, it was declared by President Jefferson, just as President Bush has declared war on terrorism. However; the Congress never formally declared war on the BP, in fact no lesser person than Alexander Hamilton stated outright that a formal declaration of war was NOT required when the nation was attacked by a foreign enemy and it was that interpretation that Congress embraced at the time. The Congress passed a joint resolution authorizing Jefferson to act much in the same way as the Terrorism Joint Resolution authorized President Bush to assume war footing as Commander In Chief..."
The result of these conflicting considerations was that the Convention amended the clause so as to give Congress the power to ''declare war...
An early controversy revolved about the issue of the President's powers and the necessity of congressional action when hostilities are initiated against us rather than the Nation instituting armed conflict. The Bey of Tripoli, in the course of attempting to extort payment for not molesting United States shipping, declared war upon the United States, and a debate began whether Congress had to enact a formal declaration of war to create a legal status of war. President Jefferson sent a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean to protect our ships but limited its mission to defense in the narrowest sense of the term. Attacked by a Tripolitan cruiser, one of the frigates subdued it, disarmed it, and, pursuant to instructions, released it. Jefferson in a message to Congress announced his actions as in compliance with constitutional limitations on his authority in the absence of a declaration of war....
Hamilton espoused a different interpretation, contending that the Constitution vested in Congress the power to initiate war but that when another nation made war upon the United States we were already in a state of war and no declaration by Congress was needed. Congress thereafter enacted a statute authorizing the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Bey of Tripoli ''and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify . . .''But no formal declaration of war was passed, Congress apparently accepting Hamilton's view..."
************
Wonderful history, Texasforever.
I knew of the Barbery Pirates, but I never thought of it as a "war."
To me it was more of a self-defence reflex, hitting back after being attacked by a bully.
I was young, in junior high school when I read of the fight. I always thought of the Pirates as just that, pirates, not a nation. It would be like a street gang declaring war on the United States. At the time, to me the Pirates destruction was justified under the President's authority to defend American citizens.
Your article is the first I heard of a Congressional question of War Powers.
My view-
1)
If the Barbary Pirates were nothing but bandits, a Declaration of War would not be needed. Congress would direct the President to act, under the authority granted it by Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10 of the Constitution.
2)
If the Barbary Pirates were in fact a nation, a Declaration of War against that Pirate nation would be necessary, as required by Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution.
From what I understand of your article, The Pirates were considered a nation in their own right. Thus, a Congressional Declaration of War would have been necessary.
Thomas Jefferson understood those Congressional limitations.
Alexander Hamilton was wrong.
You have a "right to privacy" anywhere you have the EXPECTATION of privacy.
You do not have that expectation in Wal-Mart.
# 150 by Texasforever
************
You're right in that context, Texasforever.
I don't expect to be invisible while walking through Wal-Mart.
What got us talking about "privacy" is my interpetation of the 4th Amendment
as a limitation on the government's ability to interfere with our privacy.
By privacy, I don't mean that no one can see me,
I mean that I am not required to explain my actions, unless I am accused of wrong-doing.
In other words, if someone demands that I explain why I paid cash for that car,
I am justified in telling them to mind their own business.
To: boston_liberty
"I don't see where this is a Fourth Amendment issue."
# 13 by Buck Turgidson
************
The 4th Amendment is about privacy, Buck Turgidson.
It says that government will not interfere in our lives without good evidence of criminal action, supported by the sworn testimony of an accuser. The requirements of the "War on Terrorism" violate the Constitution by giving the government the power to demand an explanation of our actions, even though we are not under investigation for criminal acts.
In other words, if you make a legal purchase of a car or other property, with cash that you made on your job, you are required to prove that you didn't violate any laws when you made your money. You better have your check stubs.
To: JD86
Fur coats, jewelry , and designer clothes don't come with a " title. "
I also don't know any normal people, who buy that sort of stuff with cash.
# 156 by nopardons
************
If the government would obey it's Congressional limitations,
we wouldn't have to worry about being considered "abnormal."
"Normal" people don't stay up all night arguing politics with people they've never seen.
Anyone posting on this thread at 4:00 in the morning would never be considered "normal."
To: bpjam
Well you beat to it.
I love laws that piss off drug dealers, terrorist, and libertarians.
# 14 by kempo
************
What?
Don't you want to "piss off" any Democrats?
If you would read the Constitution, and maybe a little history,
you might find yourself a tad peeved as well.
The argument is, these measures are 'necessary' because they can help 'prevent terrorism', eh? Hey, why stop there? Curfews and martial law will help even more. Biochip implants and a central tracking system will do wonders too. We're at 'War', right? Combine it with the War On Drugs and War On Crime. Maybe invent some new ones, like a War On Hate against nasty hateful racist people suggesting we scrutinize Middle Eastern immigrant airport workers a little more closely. Maybe we can find all the hateful, druggie, criminal terrorists at once, and start winning some of these mythical 'Wars'.
It's for 'the children', you know.
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.