Posted on 11/23/2001 2:58:00 PM PST by Smogger
I have no problem with that interpretation. I'm just trying to figure how defending America from these whackjobs has anything at all to do with how I pay for a car or whether the FBI can break into my house to read my e-mail while I'm at work.
The Bill Of Rights may be a troublesome anachronism for some folks inside the Beltway (cough cough Ashcroft cough), but jeez, they should at least try not to urinate directly onto it if they want some of the more alert frogs to stay in the pot.
Personally, I recognize that some measures in the bill were necessary and good. They did ask for the right to hold illegal immigrants for a longer period of time than previously allowed, which makes sense. What frustrates me however is that I can't figure out why it is ok to watch me in a manner previously not allowed, while those same illegal immigrants aren't held indefinitely or deported alogether. Yes, there are tools in the Patriot Act that will assist law enforcement in tracking terrorists. Unfortunately, I believe they slipped a lot of other stuff in there under the guise of anti-terrorism that they have always wanted but could not get because the things they wanted were unconstitutional as a cynical and opportunistic ploy. It happned when the Murrah building was bombed and it just happened again. A few more bombings and we won't be that much different than Stalinist Russia. Hyperbole? Perhaps. But 10 years ago, nobody would believe the measures they have recently slipped through.
To be sure, I blame Clinton for this, not Bush. I can even get conspiratorial and not discount the idea that Clinton was purposely setting us up for this for his own benefit. Nevertheless, the effect is real.
If you or somebody else could demonstrate for me how these measures will stop terrorism and that they won't be used for a single political purpose ever, I would feel better about it. Unfortunately, it is not possible to prove a future event. The Framers understood the nature of government and put protections in the Constitution for this very reason, with the understanding that the impediments to government might make things difficult, but that those difficulties were more desirable than the alternative.
This is so good, it bears repeating. I still haven't gotten over the 14 Syrians let in the country in October for flying lessons.
Not going to be used against American citizens??
Yup, I do.
Anyone who doesn't believe it needs to take a look at the clinton scandals for starters.
I've known a number of people over the course of my lifetime who bought with cash and they were normal, just wealthy. Once upon a time, paying cash allowed you to negotiate for a better deal with a business owner. I suppose that's still true even today with a business such a jewelry store.
This comment was made in response to the issue of absolute privacy.
Now might be a good time to define freedom.
Okay, how would you suggest the concepts of freedom, privacy and the need for national security be reconciled?
Well, the cause seems admirable....but you obviously object to the methods.
What would you consider reasonable for tracking cash transfers? $50,000, $100,000, none?
And if the answer is none, what alternative would you propose?
The law we are discussing is about cash PURCHASES....
please show me where there is anything about how much money you can make? or keep? or even spend?
Please explain how cash in your pocket is a transaction?
This law does not govern transactions between private parties. It covers cash purchases in the amount of $10,000 from a retailer. As you well know, such transactions are covered by the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution and reasonable limitations on interstate commerce have been upheld by the Courts.
Please explain how this law has anything to do with PRIVACY. This is a regulation of commerce, allowed by the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. Your right to privacy is not absolute. It is bounded by many things besides the Fourth Amendment.
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.
I would agree with your assessment of the 4th Amendment...to a point. As a practical matter, the more people who live in the country, the more accommodations we each have to make for others...which means our individual rights are not absolute. We have a right to privacy in our homes but we cannot screen porno flicks in the living room with the curtains open in a subdivision where many children reside. Closing the curtains is a limit on your right to do whatever you want in your home...because not doing so impacts others. We have a right to privacy in our cars but we cannot drink and drive, run red lights or speed through subdivisions. Driving within the limits of the law is a limit on your right to do whatever you want in your car...because not doing so impacts others.
We have a right to spend our money in whatever amounts we desire for whatever we desire...but if we choose to do that in cash, the limit is $10,000 or there will be a paper trail. If you wrote a check for $10,000 there would be a paper trail. Please tell me what you think the difference is between the two.
Exactly on point.
Exactly!
You are right. And this law does not say otherwise. It says a record will be made that you paid cash for the car, if you paid $10,000 or more.
That has been the law for years. If someone from the government later asks you why you did, you have several choices: tell them, don't tell them,
ask them why they want to know, ask to talk to a lawyer before responding further. But until someone from the government asks you why....
the 4th Amendment does not apply.
Me neither...:)
It's an example of the worst kind of lawmaking that is ripe for extreme abuse and the sooner it's cut to shreds the better.
I know you addressed this in your post, but it IS without doubt very unconstitutional.
LOL...and your point would be? I noticed your comment was posted at 2:56 am Pacific time....:)
By the way, why not set it lower to say $1,000? Why would anyone need to walk around with $1,000 cash on them?
As a practical matter, thousands, maybe millions, of people occasionally have $1,000 in their pocket...like payday after cashing their checks...or when traveling. Thousands probably even spend $1,000 in cash on a semi-regular basis, like buying a computer. This law is not intended for the ordinary transactions....but for the extraordinary transactions.
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.