CISPA passed in sneak attack,deletes the 4th Amendment.(boingboing.net)
boingboing.net
CISPA passed in sneak attack,deletes the 4th Amendment.
http://boingboing.net/2012/04/26/sneak-attack-surprise-amendme.html
Sneak attack: surprise amendment makes CISPA worse, then it is voted and passed a day ahead of schedule. Congress just deleted the Fourth Amendment
7 comments
Internet which poses no immediate physical threat to anyone, heavily monitored.
Guns, gun sales, nada. Massive loopholes in background checks, no monitoring, no database.
Boston "terrorists" were on watch list for two years, bought guns and explosives right out of stores.
ps. url clearly shows /2012/04/26/ but always a good reminder
I mean congress just voted back insider trading for themselves without penalties, who is watching these people?
Guns, gun sales, nada. Massive loopholes in background checks, no monitoring, no database.
Boston "terrorists" were on watch list for two years, bought guns and explosives right out of stores.
ps. url clearly shows /2012/04/26/ but always a good reminder
I mean congress just voted back insider trading for themselves without penalties, who is watching these people?
Governments, responsible for more deaths than heart disease and cancer combined. Nothing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic...
Edit: You added the question "who is watching these people?"... Do you think that loss of accountability might coincide with increasingly inequitable access to the practical and proportional means of defense against threats to private property and an individual's physical safety (ie, the right to defend yourself, not just plead for the help of a third party)?
I agree with you that the current situation is a subject for comedy: http://boingboing.net/2013/04/24/tom-the-dancing-bug-usas-gu...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic...
Edit: You added the question "who is watching these people?"... Do you think that loss of accountability might coincide with increasingly inequitable access to the practical and proportional means of defense against threats to private property and an individual's physical safety (ie, the right to defend yourself, not just plead for the help of a third party)?
I agree with you that the current situation is a subject for comedy: http://boingboing.net/2013/04/24/tom-the-dancing-bug-usas-gu...
This article is from a year ago.
Can a mod put "(2012)" in the title?
Definitely need a mod to do something about this. Put a 2012 in the title or get rid of it entirely. It smells like a troll to me.
Correct me if I am wrong (or naïve), but wouldn't the US Supreme Court strike down a law that violates the Constitution, or at least invalidate it? How can a law apply that violates the Constitution?
As far as I know, the only thing that repeal or limit an Amendment is another Amendment.
As far as I know, the only thing that repeal or limit an Amendment is another Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment is in considerable trouble these days.
http://fourthamendment.com/blog/index.php?blog=1&title=s... is a good but depressing overview.
http://fourthamendment.com/blog/index.php?blog=1&title=s... is a good but depressing overview.
That's how it's supposed to work, but it's entirely contingent on nine specially-chosen people seeing it that way.
Maybe. But since US doesn't have a Constitutional Court, and only a Supreme Court, it could take a decade or more before the issue is even brought up, and then accepted by the Supreme Court.
In that time the government could do a lot of damage with one law, and when the law is threatened to be declared unconstitutional, they'll just argue for how "useful" that law was in catching criminals, terrorists, etc. It's been done before.
Look at FISA. NSA gets a "general warrant" (notion that hasn't even been criticized much yet), to spy on everyone that talks to foreigners online or on the phone...which is what, 90% of the US population? The loophole is incredible. Yet the Senate rushed it through with no debate, until 2017. And then they'll try to rush it through again.
In that time the government could do a lot of damage with one law, and when the law is threatened to be declared unconstitutional, they'll just argue for how "useful" that law was in catching criminals, terrorists, etc. It's been done before.
Look at FISA. NSA gets a "general warrant" (notion that hasn't even been criticized much yet), to spy on everyone that talks to foreigners online or on the phone...which is what, 90% of the US population? The loophole is incredible. Yet the Senate rushed it through with no debate, until 2017. And then they'll try to rush it through again.
I question the idea that 90% of the U.S. has foreign ties, but your point (it's absurd) remains.
Actually I'd really like to see how much of the population something like FISA actually applies to.
Actually I'd really like to see how much of the population something like FISA actually applies to.
I'm pretty sure 90% of US citizens visit foreign websites, which might be enough.
In fact, they are talking to a foreigner right now!
(My apologies to any American who have had their lives ruining for talking to me. By their government, that is, not by my own personal malice.)
(My apologies to any American who have had their lives ruining for talking to me. By their government, that is, not by my own personal malice.)
Amendment 27
Section. 1. The forth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section. 1. The forth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.