Posted on 04/19/2014 2:49:04 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Thursday in an interview conducted at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg talked about their views of the First Amendment. Moderator Marvin Kalb questioned Scalia about whether the NSA wiretapping cloud be conceivably be in violation of the Constitution:
Justice Antonin Scalia said, "No because it's not absolute. As Ruth has said there are very few freedoms that are absolute. I mean your person is protected by the Fourth Amendment but as I pointed out when you board a plane someone can pass his hands all over your body that's a terrible intrusion, but given the danger that it's guarding against it's not an unreasonable intrusion. And it can be the same thing with acquiring this data that is regarded as effects. That's why I say its foolish to have us make the decision because I don't know how serious the danger is in this NSA stuff, I really don't."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
And it is the duty of those bringing a case before the court to provide that information.
Very interesting...excellent response.
And it’s so long. But what a treat.
“Temporary delusions, prejudices, excitements, and objects have irresistible influence in mere questions of policy. And the policy of one age may ill suit the wishes or the policy of another. The constitution is not subject to such fluctuations. It is to have a fixed, uniform, permanent construction. It should be, so far at least as human infirmity will allow, not dependent upon the passions or parties of particular times, but the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever.”
— Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833
“Every word employed in the Constitution is to be expounded in its plain, obvious, and common sense, unless the context furnishes some ground to control, qualify, or enlarge it. Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness or judicial research. They are instruments of a practical nature, rounded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings. The people make them, the people adopt them, the people must be supposed to read them, with the help of common-sense, and cannot be presumed to admit in them any recondite meaning or any extraordinary gloss.”
— Joseph Story, Constitution (5th ed.) 345, SS 451.
The case involves a girl named Jill who purportedly pushed Jack and he fell down the hill. Jack seeks medical bills and punitive damages.
Unfortunately for Jill, Jack's mother managed to photograph Jill pushing Jack.
Jill claims that Jack pushed her first and it was self defense.
It seems Jill potentially suffered personal injury by falling down the hill as well.
She may have tried to grab onto him to prevent his fall and may have been injured for her efforts.
No good deed goes unpunished.
But the main question remains:
Why the hell would a well be at the top of a hill?
Since water seeks its own level, and water runs downhill, couldn’t they have had a natural spring (running water) by tapping into the water table part way up the hill?
This case has many strange aspects and unanswered questions.
Jill lost her front tooth and her nose was swollen. And when she went to school the next day, she lied her little a** off.
Jill went on to be a stripper.
Jack was school president, captain of the football team, went on to be CEO of a top company. He married his attorneys granddaughter.
These wells are deep. My bros is over 50 ft. deep.
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)
The reasonable view is that one who installs in his house a telephone instrument with connecting wires intends to project his voice to those quite outside, and that the wires beyond his house and messages while passing over them are not within the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Here, those who intercepted the projected voices were not in the house of either party to the conversation.The court went on to say that Congress could limit the right of the government to obtain evidence by warrantless wiretapping, but providing protection of telephone privacy was not the court's job.
As for Scalia, one need look no further than the Heller case to see how willing he is to adopt the statist mantle. Scalia is no friend of the government being ruled by the people.
As far as Breitbart goes, like so often happens, when the visionary is gone, the organization ofttimes loses it's edge and focus, becomes sloppy and dissipates. I generally like Breitbart.com. I hope they stay sharp.
Scalia is not saying that SCOTUS should not decide a constitutional question. He’s saying that SCOTUS is the least qualified of the three branches to resolve the question of reasonableness because they are not privy to the details of national security threats.
Scalia also reversed the logic and holding of the Miller case in order to find that the public has always been restricted from possession of military arms.
Separately, the McDonald case could have been handled decades ago, by correcting the chronic error by lower courts, who deliberately cherry-picked from Presser. SCOTUS decided inaction was prudent, and let the error stand (a lie repeated enough times becomes the truth). Presser, usually cited for the proposition that the states are free to limit the RKBA, also says this ...
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the [second amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think [116 U.S. 252, 266] it clear that the sections [of Illinois law] under consideration do not have this effect.Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
The 2nd Circuit asserted just the opposite, FWIW, that Presser stands for the proposition that the states MAY prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms.
Bach v. Pataki, 408 F.3d 75, 84, 86 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding "that the Second Amendment's `right to keep and bear arms' imposes a limitation on only federal, not state, legislative efforts" and noting that this outcome was compelled by Presser), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1174 (2006).Maloney v. Cuomo
Actually I was being a bit sarcastic. I was pointing out that Scalia avoided the terms "rights" and "privileges" because he didn't want to draw attention to their differences.
Simply put, rights from come God, while privileges are accorded by the State ONLY to corporations or people acting in a corporate capacity. And that includes "operating a motor vehicle on public highways or performing surgery."
Perhaps oral argument before the Supreme Court might shed some light on that, Justice Scalia.
Sure, but I think the distinction is still important to point out because some people really don't know the difference.
There are far too many people who accept the premise that the government grants you rights, not just the "freedoms" that happen to be privileges.
The fact is that it violates the Fourth Amendment.
No, we weren’t cheering the Patriot Act. It was overly broad, although it has a couple of worthwhile provisions.
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.