Posted on 08/17/2006 1:02:27 PM PDT by Peach
Press conference to start shortly; podium is set up waiting for Gonzales.
That wasn't the ruling.
Yep. Sure was. Under the pretext of free speech (1st Amendment) violations.
Great Find! I dimly recall the daughter's appointment being controversial, at least within the pages of Human Events, as political pay off at the time, but haven't been able to find any details on that so far.
You should be writing headlines for the New York Times.
That's the thing, no COURT said the NSA could do this.
You agreed to that by virtue of your employment, you signed a form stating they could perform those checks.
If you knew where to look, my records are probably already on the net.
Somebody's in big trouble if they are, as it is private information. I've also had those checks, but I barely exist on the Internet with my real name. All that pops up for me are some ancient (and quite innocent) email list postings from those archives.
That's only one part of it. The idea that the concept of personal privacy is inherent in the Constitution is pretty old.
Again, it is my understanding that the FISA judges made the determination, after the request by the government, whether or not to allow the NSA searches. It may not have been decided by a court CASE, but it's under the purview of a Court.
"...ruling that said it was unconstitutional to say the word "God" in the Pledge Of Allegiance..."No, really, it wasn't.That wasn't the ruling.
Yep. Sure was. Under the pretext of free speech (1st Amendment) violations.
It wasn't about what you could say. It was about what a public institution could compel children to say, and not on free speech ground but on freedom of religion grounds.
Didn't a FISA judge resign because Bush didn't go through FISA?
It was argued as a 1st Amendment violation case.
Which doesn't just mean free speech.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Tell that to Michael Newdow and the 9th Circus Court which found that the phrase constitutes an endorsement of religion, and therefore violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, the decision was later overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds, citing that Newdow did not have custody of his daughter and therefore did not have the right to bring suit on her behalf.
yeah, I know what you mean such as some of the worst decisions in constitutional law such as Roe v Wade.
Not sure what your point is here. The first part of what you posted is a non-sequitur but agrees with what I said, refuting the point you were making. The second, bolded, part has nothing to do with what we were discussing.
"It goes far back to before "Roe" was even born."
That is a lousy arguement. Provide when, exactly, the right to privacy was found and the means that determined it.
"It makes it clear that the Bill of Rights is not an exhaustive list of rights retained by the People. It invalidates the statement "I don't see right X listed in the constitution". "The constitution is a limit on the powers of government, not the other way around." If a person was to presume what you presume; that the ninth amendment was to include privacy, there would be no way for the government to enforce any laws. We would have anarchy, which was clearly not the founders intent. If the founding fathers intended anarchy, they would have written a document that restricted this nation from having any form of government.
"You missed the point. The 9th amendment made it clear that the rights listed out in the bill of rights were not to be taken as an exhaustive list.
The 4th amendment coupled with the 9th makes privacy a pretty clearly protected right."
If that was the case, then there would be no need to have either house of Congress to make laws, no need for the Executive branch to enforce laws and no need for the juducial branch to interpret laws, because all laws would invade privacy.
The founding fathers could have really cut to the chase, if that was their intent, and made a constitution that said, there will be no government in this country.
You believe that the Bill of Rights is an exhaustive list of rights retained by the People?
Please share your view on the 9th amemdment. What is it's purpose?
"You really believe that? You might want to let the courts know about this misconception as warrants for wiretaps have been required virtually since their inception.
You think the framers envisioned a police state?"
I don't believe that, but I do believe that the framers did intend that the rights of the US consistution were meant for those within this country, not for anyone and everyone in the world.
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.