House Renews Patriot Act

Dixie said:
No, because it would defy logic and most likely be your personal interpretation which lead to that conclusion, not the conclusion of the SCOTUS. Go read up on what the SCOTUS role is in Government, they are specifically charged with interpreting what IS and ISN'T constitutional. You are claiming they KNEW something to be unconstitutional, but said it was constitutional anyway? Show me that in their words, that exact sentiment, and I will believe you. I think you are deliberately leaving something out.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz

The Michigan Supreme Court found sobriety checkpoints to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, in a split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Michigan court. Although acknowledging that such roadblocks violate a fundamental constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that they are necessary in order to reduce drunk driving. That is, he argued that the end justifies the means. Attorney and law professor Lawrence Taylor refers to this as “the DUI exception to the Constitution.”

Chief Justice Rehnquist had argued that violating individual constitutional rights was justified because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary. But dissenting Justice Stevens pointed out that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative." And even if roadblocks were effective, the fact that they work wouldn’t justify violating individuals’ constitutional rights, justices argued.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Translation: Caught in the logic he can't escape...Southie tries to bluff his way out by trying to mock me...unfortunately the idiot uses a quote out of context ....displaying that he has no definitive response to alter his being proved wrong.

Once again, I'll clue in Southie the dumb bastard..... Posts #61 and #107.....if he can produce any posts of exchanges between us that alters the logical conclusion of these two, I'd like to see it...because the bottom line is either he's just gain saying to score a grudge point or he's trying to dodge admitting error or he's truly fucking stupid.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Translation: Caught in the logic he can't escape...Southie tries to bluff his way out by trying to mock me...unfortunately the idiot uses a quote out of context ....displaying that he has no definitive response to alter his being proved wrong.

Once again, I'll clue in Southie the dumb bastard..... Posts #61 and #107.....if he can produce any posts of exchanges between us that alters the logical conclusion of these two, I'd like to see it...because the bottom line is either he's just gain saying to score a grudge point or he's trying to dodge admitting error or he's truly fucking stupid.
Click to expand...

Southern Man said:
Wrong.
Click to expand...

And there you have it folks.....Southie's got nothing....just like I stated. Time to leave Southie the dumb bastard to his foolish rantings and wailings, as I move on. I'm sure we'll meet again! :cof1:
 
SmarterThanYou said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz

The Michigan Supreme Court found sobriety checkpoints to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, in a split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Michigan court. Although acknowledging that such roadblocks violate a fundamental constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that they are necessary in order to reduce drunk driving. That is, he argued that the end justifies the means. Attorney and law professor Lawrence Taylor refers to this as “the DUI exception to the Constitution.”

Chief Justice Rehnquist had argued that violating individual constitutional rights was justified because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary. But dissenting Justice Stevens pointed out that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative." And even if roadblocks were effective, the fact that they work wouldn’t justify violating individuals’ constitutional rights, justices argued.
Click to expand...

well dixie? what do you think now? :pke:
 
I'm still waiting for you to show me where the SCOTUS ruled that an essential constitutional right being violated, is constitutional. You've not done that. Sorry!
 
Dixie said:
I'm still waiting for you to show me where the SCOTUS ruled that an essential constitutional right being violated, is constitutional. You've not done that. Sorry!
Click to expand...

fail. 'essential' is moving the goal post because you got owned.

The Michigan Supreme Court found sobriety checkpoints to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, in a split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Michigan court. Although acknowledging that such roadblocks violate a fundamental constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that they are necessary in order to reduce drunk driving. That is, he argued that the end justifies the means. Attorney and law professor Lawrence Taylor refers to this as “the DUI exception to the Constitution.”
 
SmarterThanYou said:
fail. 'essential' is moving the goal post because you got owned.

The Michigan Supreme Court found sobriety checkpoints to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, in a split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Michigan court. Although acknowledging that such roadblocks violate a fundamental constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that they are necessary in order to reduce drunk driving. That is, he argued that the end justifies the means. Attorney and law professor Lawrence Taylor refers to this as “the DUI exception to the Constitution.”
Click to expand...

Fixed that for ya! Maybe you can see the FLAW and FAIL in your point?
 
STY... Let's be clear about what the Constitution states... You are entitled to ESSENTIAL rights... that is not all rights all the time, as you may have thought!

In any honest debate of this, we must use the definition of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, in actual case law findings. Otherwise, we are merely having a "philosophical" discussion, in which case... you win! I can't argue with your philosophical viewpoint, because I agree with it too much! Even if I could argue with your philosophical view, what does that accomplish? People can have different philosophical views, and it doesn't mean one of them is wrong or that only one can be right, that is the textbook definition of bigotry.
 
Dixie said:
STY... Let's be clear about what the Constitution states... You are entitled to ESSENTIAL rights... that is not all rights all the time, as you may have thought!
Click to expand...
what would you care about the constitution anyway? you've stated your position loud and clear that the ends justify the means, fundamental rights or not.

Dixie said:
In any honest debate of this, we must use the definition of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, in actual case law findings. Otherwise, we are merely having a "philosophical" discussion, in which case... you win! I can't argue with your philosophical viewpoint, because I agree with it too much! Even if I could argue with your philosophical view, what does that accomplish? People can have different philosophical views, and it doesn't mean one of them is wrong or that only one can be right, that is the textbook definition of bigotry.
Click to expand...

I feel for you. was it your upbringing in the home or were you assaulted for too long a time by the socialist public education system? The courts have been 'allowed' to interpret the constitution because that's what we've let them do since slaughterhouse and cruikshank. impeaching those justices would have been too politically damaging i guess, but we as a people have the ability to enforce OUR constitution on the courts. Remember, they were created by US, not the other way around.
 
STY's being an idiot on this issue. Like the FBI listing in on your conversation to some guy in Iran is violating your right to privacy. :palm:
 
Southern Man said:
STY's being an idiot on this issue. Like the FBI listing in on your conversation to some guy in Iran is violating your right to privacy. :palm:
Click to expand...

if being an originalist or strict constructionist is being an idiot, how do you feel about Justice Scalia?

talk about face palm? you've been having your ass handed to you on every constitutional debate with me. your head must be killing you.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
if being an originalist or strict constructionist is being an idiot, how do you feel about Justice Scalia?

talk about face palm? you've been having your ass handed to you on every constitutional debate with me. your head must be killing you.
Click to expand...
Scali's more pragmatic then you think.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
what would you care about the constitution anyway? you've stated your position loud and clear that the ends justify the means, fundamental rights or not.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't state MY position, just the position of law and the Constitution. MY position really doesn't matter here, nor does yours. What is important in an intellectual conversation, is what IS... not what we wish.

The Constitutional rights we have, are considered by the Court, to be divided into several levels. Whether 'violation' of those rights has occurred, is largely dependent on the specific right, whether it is 'essential' is one of several considerations. There is also a consideration as to the reason for violation of your rights, and whether there is an ends-justified reason for it. Then there are a set of criteria for what constitutes "a good reason" in justification, and the other rights and freedoms which may be in play there. It is very complicated and difficult to wrap your mind around, which is why they invented a thing called "Constitutional Law" and study it. There is no black and white answer to whether something IS or ISN'T a violation of the Constitution, or it wouldn't take a SCOTUS to decide cases! There ARE fundamental principles which should be applied by the Justices on the SCOTUS, and sometimes they are... sometimes they aren't! This is why it is fundamentally important to appoint originalist judges to the court, and not some activist liberal who thinks they can change meaning of words on a whim of social consciousness.

I feel for you. was it your upbringing in the home or were you assaulted for too long a time by the socialist public education system? The courts have been 'allowed' to interpret the constitution because that's what we've let them do since slaughterhouse and cruikshank. impeaching those justices would have been too politically damaging i guess, but we as a people have the ability to enforce OUR constitution on the courts. Remember, they were created by US, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

I probably attended the same socialist liberal education system as you did in high school and college. I am well aware that our intended foundational freedoms and liberties have been eroded through history, but that does not change reality of the system and society we currently live in, nor does it change how we move forward in our future. We have very similar philosophical views on this, but apparently a difference in being ideological versus pragmatic. I can only form my opinions and viewpoints based on reality of what is the case, or what is reasonable to believe will be the case going forward, it doesn't help to wax philosophical about what our founding fathers envisioned, or what our perceptions of that may be, right or wrong. That has nothing to do with the discussion of the legitimate Constitutionality of the Patriot Act.

Just off the top of my head, and just with the knowledge that has been declassified for the public at this time, we know of at least a dozen full-blown terrorist attacks on America, which have been averted because of the Patriot Act! Because we DID enable our governmental security agencies the tools to STOP the plans before they happened! Do you just not get the fundamental point there? If we tie their hands to do the job we expect them to do, how are they going to do it? When we lose another 3,000 or 3 MILLION Americans, would that be enough to convince you that we need to stop being overly paranoid about our "rights" being violated?

Are you a terrorist? Do you know any terrorists? Any of your friends been talking about the 12th Imam lately? I don't know how to put it to you, but I don't see where anyone's essential rights are being violated with the Patriot Act, I see where they are being protected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top