- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why is diminishing the 4th amendment acceptable, but not the 2nd
Posted on 2/15/18 at 8:51 am to Salmon
Posted on 2/15/18 at 8:51 am to Salmon
quote:
Trump reissuing FISA with no amendments, even though he was aware of its abuses, was conveniently ignored by many
Democrats and leftists like yourself have done your best to ignore the abuses themselves! What do you have to complain about?
Just about any law can be abused by those who enforce and administer it. Does that mean the law should just be stricken?
2
Posted on 2/15/18 at 8:53 am to troyt37
quote:
Democrats and leftists like yourself have done your best to ignore the abuses themselves! What do you have to complain about?
I haven't ignored anything quote:
Just about any law can be abused by those who enforce and administer it. Does that mean the law should just be stricken?
When the law is written to the point where it is designed to cover its abuses? Yes. Or at the very least amended.
Yet none of that happened. I wonder why?
Posted on 2/15/18 at 8:53 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
(including a significant portion of this boa
Excuse me, are you new here?
Posted on 2/15/18 at 8:54 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
It's not to the Conservatives. It is to the left.
Those laws were passed by conservatives
.Posted on 2/15/18 at 8:55 am to Pinecone Repair
quote:
Excuse me, are you new here?
A lot has changed on this board from 2011 when I joined. No I am not new.
Posted on 2/15/18 at 8:56 am to NYNolaguy1
I'm not much of a two wrongs make a right thinker
Posted on 2/15/18 at 8:57 am to troyt37
quote:
Democrats and leftists like yourself have done your best to ignore the abuses themselves! What do you have to complain about?
I became an independant after the Republican congress passed the "Freedom Act". If the Democrats abused it, perhaps the Republicans shouldnt have passed it. Whats good for the goose and all.
Posted on 2/15/18 at 8:58 am to NYNolaguy1
In hindsight it’s clear that the wording “shall not be infringed” should have been worked into the 4th Amendment somewhere.
Posted on 2/15/18 at 8:59 am to Salmon
quote:
When the law is written to the point where it is designed to cover its abuses?
When the FBI/DOJ violate the Constitution, and provide known false information to a judge in order to get a FISA warrant, a law "designed to cover it's abuses" doesn't even come into play.
When you have people who are willing to disregard the Constitution, written law, and established practices in pursuit of undermining or overturning the election process, what difference would the wording of the law, or any amendments make?
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:00 am to troyt37
quote:
When the FBI/DOJ violate the Constitution, and provide known false information to a judge in order to get a FISA warrant, a law "designed to cover it's abuses" doesn't even come into play.
When you have people who are willing to disregard the Constitution, written law, and established practices in pursuit of undermining or overturning the election process, what difference would the wording of the law, or any amendments make?
Has it occurred to you that perhaps the system was set up intentionally this way?
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:02 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
False premise.
Go on...
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:02 am to troyt37
quote:
a law "designed to cover it's abuses" doesn't even come into play.
It absolutely does. How many people do you think are going to go to jail over the FBI/FISA scandal?
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:03 am to Salmon
quote:
How many people do you think are going to go to jail over the FBI/FISA scandal?
None. Theres wayyy too much to lose if it goes to trial.
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:03 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Has it occurred to you that perhaps the system was set up intentionally this way?
He doesn't realize that the FISA courts allow for all the abuses he just stated. It is the path to get around them.
This post was edited on 2/15/18 at 9:04 am
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:06 am to NYNolaguy1
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:08 am to NYNolaguy1
Doesn't that just illustrate that gutting our rights for safety doesn't really make us any safer. Taking authoritarian measures to reduce low incident crimes to closer to zero is a terrible precedent. I wish the judiciary would take note of it, rather than cheering on the erosion of freedom.
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:09 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Has it occurred to you that perhaps the system was set up intentionally this way?
Yes, of course. It was 9D chess by Bush 2, who knew that if he got this passed, criminal democrats like Hillary, Obama, Rice, and Holder, along with their criminal accomplices in the FBI and DOJ, wouldn't be able to #resist trampling their political opponents constitutional rights, and providing known false information to a judge to get a warrant.
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:12 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Why is diminishing the 4th amendment acceptable, but not the 2nd
Because the 2nd is the foundation that gave us all of the others. At some point the 2nd will be the one thing that helps restore our rights. Some think it will never happen but it will be the only way to get back what has been stolen from us.
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:13 am to therick711
quote:
Taking authoritarian measures to reduce low incident crimes to closer to zero is a terrible precedent. I wish the judiciary would take note of it, rather than cheering on the erosion of freedom.
I whole heartedly agree, but that wont change the "small govt conservatives" push for bigger prisons, more punishment, and harsher sentences.
Posted on 2/15/18 at 9:15 am to Salmon
quote:
Yes. Or at the very least amended.
Yet none of that happened. I wonder why?
Could be a myriad of reasons for them, most of them political. If the Congress passes a safety measure, and the president vetoes it because he thinks its unconstitutional, according to Marbury, he's usurping the power of the judiciary. If he vetoes it because it is a bad idea, people will say he doesn't want to make Americans safe. If he vetoes it without giving a reason, he will have every manner of thing pinned to him.
In terms of amending it, I'm not sure why the Congress didn't do that. They probably didn't want to be seen as pro-terrorist either. The good news, it being reenacted without change enhances the chances it will be declared unconstitutional and thrown out in toto. At this point, we need to hope for that. Think of it like The VRA, congress is too cowardly to get rid of that massive infringement on rights, so the Court had to step in and kill it.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News