Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating - Bush 43's library about to open up, interesting articles by 2 liberals

Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/index.php)

- Political Threads (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/forumdisplay.php?f=66)

- - Bush 43's library about to open up, interesting articles by 2 liberals (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/showthread.php?t=82071)

[QUOTE=detbuch;996525][QUOTE=Jim in CT;996362]Bush implemented these policies, and Obama has kept all of them in place (except waterboarding, I believe)? So if those 2 guys, who are as far apart as you can get on the political spectrum, both agree that these protections are legal, I sleep OK at night.

Because Bush and Obama agree, that makes it constitutional? Whaaa . . .

But if someone says we are not safer today that 12 years ago, I assume that person is blinded by political ideology, because you must admit that is an absurd statement.

Uhhh . . . two twenty-year-olds with back packs and pressure cookers, in spite of the Bush era/Obama era "safeguards" succeeded in blowing up the Boston Marathon.

I'm sorry, where in the Constitution does it say that you need probable cause for wiretaps? I have read the Constitution, and I don't recall that. Because it's not there. Which means that's something that's open to interpretation.

Quote:

That's not how it's supposed to work, Jim. If something "is not there"--doesn't fall within an enumerated power--the Federal Government has no right to do it. What the SCOTUS has to "interpret" is if the action falls within the purview of powers granted to any branch of the Federal Government by the Constitution. If it does, so be it--the government can act in a nearly unlimited capacity. If it doesn't, it has no power to act. Where, in the Constitution, did you read that the Federal Government, or any branch thereof, has the power to write its own search warrants, to permit search warrants without probable cause, to spy on personal computer communications, to fund the installation of cameras and microphones on nearly every street corner, or to expand the 10 second window to collect "excited utterance" to 72 hours of interrogation before Miranda begins?

The use of "interpretation" to go beyond the determination of government power as constitutionally granted into spheres of social or economic "good" or necessity is the very thing that has reduced the Constitution to a meaningless tool used as a cover which allows government to rule without limits.

"Because Bush and Obama agree, that makes it constitutional?"

Neither one claimed that it was unconstitutional, and that covers a huge political divide. Also, has the Supreme Court deemed the Patriot Act to be unconstitutional? Not as far as I know..

"Uhhh . . . two twenty-year-olds with back packs and pressure cookers, in spite of the Bush era/Obama era "safeguards" succeeded in blowing up the Boston Marathon"

Come on, you are better than that. I did not say we are "invulnerable". I said we are "safer". In other words, we are not "perfectly safe". But we are obviously "more safe" than we were on 09/11...you are the first person I have ever heard deny that.

Al Queda still exists, and they are lethal. But they don't have the operational capacities they once had. We are better at anti-terror than we were 15 years ago. Do you really deny that?

"Where, in the Constitution, did you read that the Federal Government, or any branch thereof, has the power to write its own search warrants"

You got me there...

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;996550][QUOTE=detbuch;996525]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 996362)

Bush
"Where, in the Constitution, did you read that the Federal Government, or any branch thereof, has the power to write its own search warrants"

You got me there...

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We just saw Watertown cops busting into houses and searching them without a warrant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nebe (Post 996552)

We just saw Watertown cops busting into houses and searching them without a warrant.

The police can search your house without a warrant if they believe there's an issue of public safety...which there certainly was. I'd note that what was reported was the police knocking and asking for permission to search...not exactly jackbooted thugs kicking down doors.

-spence

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;996550][QUOTE=detbuch;996525]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 996362)

Come on, you are better than that. I did not say we are "invulnerable". I said we are "safer". In other words, we are not "perfectly safe". But we are obviously "more safe" than we were on 09/11...you are the first person I have ever heard deny that.

I did not deny that we are "safer," I honestly don't know. We may be "safer" in one respect but more in danger in another. Less hampered "surveillance" may discover various chatter that could lead to the foiling of plots. It is said that has happened. Much of the security measures, such as were used in solving the Boston Marathon bombing, are useful in catching the bad guys after the fact, but don't prevent the fact. I don't know if we are "safer" from terrorists after 9/11, but the number of attacks doesn't appear to have diminished. Several have occurred since then and several are claimed to have been thwarted. I don't "know" if the resolve to attack us by various radical Islamist groups has lessened, and if our "surveillance" will cause them to wither and die away. I understand that the intricacies of todays foreign relations are supposed to be very entangled, subtle, and difficult to manipulate, but my preference after 9/11 would have been to reduce Afghanistan to rubble then leave, with a calling card placed on top of the heap inviting whoever remained to have peaceful, "reasonable" relations, or we could show them more of the same. I know that's "extreme" and very disturbing to saner folks than me, but it might lead to a quicker resolve of the issue than this slow bleeding to see who can outlast who.

So I don't "know" if we are safer from terrorism because of the patriot act, but I think we are less safe from an ever expanding government control.

Al Queda still exists, and they are lethal. But they don't have the operational capacities they once had. We are better at anti-terror than we were 15 years ago. Do you really deny that?

I really don't "know." I am in no position to deny that you do "know."

"Where, in the Constitution, did you read that the Federal Government, or any branch thereof, has the power to write its own search warrants"

You got me there...

Well, read the Constitution again and find it. It was written by, for, and of the people, not by, for, and of the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS was to protect it from government usurpation. But it was written so that ALL of us could understand, preserve, protect, and defend it. When we sheepishly wait for the Supreme Court to decide, we wait for a case to be brought to them, and then often wait for wolves in black robes to decide.