Posted on 11/23/2001 2:58:00 PM PST by Smogger
In what way; in what sense? Emergency legislation during time of war, a type of war heretofore unknown in/by this country? What laws would you propose (that's what I asked in reply #20) to facilitate the tracking down of these Bad Guys within our borders?
"...that is ripe for extreme abuse and the sooner it's cut to shreds the better."
NO argument from me there, and you're right.......I did address this earlier.
"I know you addressed this in your post, but it IS without doubt very unconstitutional."
Is it? I haven't seen a Constitutional challenge to the legislation yet. I know that there are people far smarter than I am who can comb through it carefully and judge the constitutionality of this legislation. I just haven't seen evidence of that yet. I understand Emergency War Powers, I understand giving the Chief Executive/CinC the requisite power and authority to prosecute a war, though. I just haven't seen hard-core proof that this Act crosses the line into the realm of "un-constitutional power grabbing and rights usurpation". I remain open-minded on this, for I have NO desire whatsoever to see MY rights.......or yours.........taken away or unnecessarily abridged.
You know what I think is causing so much trouble with all this, AAABEST? It's the use of the term "war" when describing our conflict against terrorism. It's historically a very specific term with well-understood "rules" and procedures. What we're dealing with now fits no such rules; fits no such procedures. We're not meeting a clear-cut, massed enemy on the field of battle. We're not fighting over turf or mineral resources; we have no clear-cut battle lines, and we don't even really know exactly who the opposing combatants are or where they are. If we called this, for example, a "conflict" or something other than "war", what impact would that have on legislative procedures, military procedures, Executive Branch powers, etc.? Vietnam aside, I really don't quite know at this point.
One thing we all CAN agree on: Bush isn't waging a Balkans-style fiasco or merely launching a few cruise missiles at some poor saps JUST to get his name out of the headlines for boffing yet another teenager........or to obscure the latest allegations of serious crimes.
Bush is fighting back; WE'RE fighting back as the direct result of a vicious, deadly, horrific attack on our soil. We can cloak our response in any mantle we choose, but to me..........it's war.
What if I buy from a local store? All I said was that this Act, as applied in some cases, is a violation of the 4th Amendment. Is it in all cases, no. Will it ever effect me, no. Is that a reason to allow the Government to write sloppy laws that do not follow the Constitutional prohibitions? I don't think so.
All I said was that this Act, as applied in some cases, is a violation of the 4th Amendment. Is it in all cases, no.
Can you give one example where it would be a violation of the 4th Amendment?
Will it ever effect me, no. Is that a reason to allow the Government to write sloppy laws that do not follow the Constitutional prohibitions? I don't think so. If you can give me one example I may agree with you. But so far you haven't made your case.
I am not trying to dodge the question but I don't really fit into a slot. If I had to pick...which I never do personally...I would come down more often on the side of the conservatives. In general, I am for a limited federal government, I am very conservative on fiscal issues, I believe responsibilities should be handled at the lowest possible level of government involvement...if a person can do it alone, they should, if not...then it should be a local govt issue...then state...and the federal govt should only be involved in things the states cannot do alone....like funding the military. Those are broad general outlines of what I believe...but I decide issues on the merits at the time. I have never voted a straight ticket in my life...there is always at least one candidate that I go...No, not you...:) And on some issues, I have changed my mind in the last five years...as I have heard and considered the views of others. That is why I don't like labels...because I may tell you something today and change my position next week. So, what do you think? Am I a liberal or a conservative? I would probably say free thinking Independent.
IOW, the purpose of the 4th was to guarantee that citizens would not be surveilled until they had become suspect of criminal activity, pursuant to the approval of an independent judge.
This action essentially presumes ALL citizens to be suspects of criminal activity.
I don't think that this is really a 4th amendment issue, but what about that "Right of Privacy" that the Left screams about in the abortion context. Supposedly, we all have a "right to privacy" that is one of the penumbras emanating from the Bill of Rights. I think my financial transactions should be private, as should everyone elses.
If we scrapped our current tax code, and had a VAT or a national sales tax, this would no longer be an issue as tax evasion would be nearly impossible, as retailers would collect the Federal tax, just as they do at the state level. Surely this is a better idea than taxing income, wiht all of the attendant snooping involved in having an income tax. But I think the attendant snooping is what our government likes!!
Yes they found this out later. But when he was stopped he was some guy of ME background trying to get in the US 3 days after a national emergency with a funny passport.
If you can give me one example I may agree with you.
JUST ONE? --- How about this. I am an Artist, I paint and make scuptures. I have a local storefront where I sell my wares. A local patron comes into my stores and wishes to buy my Art for $15,000 in cash. I am engaged in a business, but it is local only. I have no catalog, no advertisment, and no website furthering or advertising my Art outside my local community.
Being forced to report this transaction, other than legally reporting the income, is a violation of the 4th Amendment. Your thoughts?
The purpose of the 4th is to insure unreasonable searches and seizures. Let me start with this...
"...no warrants shall issue, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, supported by oath or affirmation, a nd particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The purpose of the 4th is to prevent the govt from searching me without probable cause. IOW, it must have a SPECIFIC cause and swear so before a magistrate before it may search me. This requirement does NOT state a specific probable cause to examine my private transactions.
IMHO, this activity is no different than an LEO coming into my home and looking through my checkbook.
essentially presumes ALL citizens to be suspects of criminal activity. Only the ones who deal in large amounts of cash, presumably to avoid paper trails...those are usually criminal types.
private business is oxymoron
private = you and another person
business owner = public, ie regulated by government...licensing, taxes, Commerce Clause, etc.
If you want to buy something from a private person and pay him/her in cash....even over $10,000..it is not covered by this law.
(But I would recommend you get a receipt.)
Retailers are not LEOS. The 4th amendment only applies to government. Its like crying for your first amendment protections here if a moderator zaps one of your posts. The constitution is irrelevant until the government gets involved.
Isnt flagging the government when people spend money label a person as a 'cash user'? Once that lable of 'cash user' is put on the person do you think it ends there?
No it does not, some type of investigation starts or the government would not want the info. Then the person must prove they are innocent eventhough it is the governments job to prove they guilty. In other words a lable of guilt is put on a person BEFORE they have been proven to have done anything wrong.
" So, what do you think? Am I a liberal or a conservative? I would probably say free thinking Independent."
You are more of a liberal from what I see in your replys. Anyone who thinks government intrusion is ok and defends such is not a conservative. Free thinking Independent's question the govenment before they defend it.
Since you are so new here here is what Free Republic.com is for
"Free Republic is an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America."
Suspicious purchases? Like what? What is covered in this bill? Have you read it? Have you any idea what you are talking about?
In case you haven't noticed, unthinking, hysterical people like you are much, much more dangerous to our country and freedom than any terrorist ever was.
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.