How would we know?
What if...the judge were to run for office?
If the government feels it needs to bypass the Constitution as the only way to protect Americans, then we need to amend the Constitution. I doubt they’re spying on us for our protection, however, which is why the legal course of action probably wouldn’t work.
Not rhetorical questions; he is all over it!
These secret courts failed us, the administration not only failed us but lied to us and the NSA lied and lied and lied.
Who ever was involved with the lies should be accountable and spend a mimimum of 20 years in jail.
What if we treated every single government employee that willfully violates the Constitution like the traitor that they are and hang them?
What if one of the secrets collected by the president’s spies concerned the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?
What if the Chief Justice issued a pivotal opinion upholding a totalitarian power grab that was the biggest initiative of the president’s term in office, in a nonsensical opinion that was contrary to the Chief Justice’s jurisprudential philosophy?
Fill out Brackets
This objection seems to be based upon the privacy fraud. NSA is looking but not seizing. The true basis of Search and Seizure is the protection of property not some left wing legal construct designed, among other things, to prevent checking into a given persons antecedents. The aforementioned being said I admit I don’t like the spying any better than the next guy, but I still ask what have I really given up by NSA spying and learning the contents of a recipe I sent my sister.?
TO THE TOP
Thanks again, Kas,
TO THE TOP
Thanks again, Kas,
There is supposed to be an oversight committee to monitor and stop acts of these agencies from infringing on the rights of American citizens. But, as is typical, such power corrupts.
No doubt NSA data is already being used for extortion.
Anything the government has that can be abused will be.
As apathy on the subject grown the abuse will become more and more bold.
It’s not a stretch by any means to anticipate the NSA database may at sometime in the future be used to establish and maintain a rigid caste system.
Maybe you won’t get accepted to that college...or get that permit...or that profession license...or that medical procedure. Hey...or maybe it will be taken out on your children.
Maybe Obama will leave the White House with a suitcase full of hard drive. It was said that the Clintons left office with 1,500 FBI files -that’s child’s play. What if Obama leaves office with that suitcase full of hard drive totaling something like 200 terabytes. Just the nitty gritty on say the 300,000 most prominent conservatives in the US. What will that be worth to Obama-&-Obama Consulting? What would the NSA files be worth for most every opposition campaign contributor AND potential candidate.
If they can abuse it they will. This is the point of no return.
This really brings to light the importance of an Article V convention. The government did not become this abomination overnight. It took over a hundred years, perhaps over 200 years, to evolve into this untenable thing.
While the convention itself can prune an enormous amount of this unconstitutional growth, it must include a mechanism that will permanently cut off excess growth, in an orderly manner.
The federal government itself is incapable of performing this function, so it must be carried out by the individual states in a collective body. While something of this sort was conceived in the constitution, with the US senate, it was destroyed by the 17th amendment.
But the basic fault was that even senators more responsible to their states are still not inclined to do this function. Instead, it should be a judicial function.
Not of a federal court, but of a body of state courts, with judges appointed by the states, whose purpose it is to protect the power of the states, not of the federal government.
So think of recreating the senate, but with state judges instead of senators. In fact, with judges having six year appointed terms in parallel with each states senators. And very clear that legislatures cannot abrogate (or “democratize”) the responsibility for these appointments.
Typically, when we think of federal courts, their function is to determine constitutionality of the laws. But this would not be the case with this assembly, as it would be redundant.
Instead, they would determine jurisdiction of cases already heard by the federal courts of appeal. After the constitutional arguments have been made, they could say that this issue is not a federal or constitutional issue and should be returned to the state of origin for a verdict.
The other function of this body would be to have original jurisdiction over lawsuits between the states and the federal government. This means that if a state sued the feds, for example, the other states would decide who should prevail. Thus placing state interests over federal ones.
In any event, with these two things, this body would carry out a perpetual pruning mechanism to limit federal growth.
“If”? It has for many years now. Where have you been?
What if my aunt had balls? She would be my uncle.
"What if" s of this nature spawn revolutions...or possibly "civil" wars. No matter, they all end badly.
5.56mm
“What if secrecy has replaced the rule of law? What if that replacement has left us in the dark about what the government knows and what it is doing? What if few in government believe in transparency? What if few in government believe in the Constitution? “
Uh I think thats what everybody is ticked off about.
“What are we going to do about it”
Well unless something changes soon we will all find out. Because something will be done about it.
“What do we do about it?”
That’s tricky. The one person who controls all of these agencies is the president. Since they are part of the executive branch, he could put a stop to all their improper activities by sending out a memo.
Of course, even if you elect a candidate who promises to do that, and follows through, without action from congress, or the courts, there is nothing stopping the next president from starting it all up again.
Secrecy is the keystone of all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy . . . censorship. When any government, or any Church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects “This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,” the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything-— you can’t conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.
Robert H. Heinlein - Revolt in 2100.