Snowdon is a dummy

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I don't need to provide the source...

Of course you don't.

But all it is...is interpretation.

And the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, ci, is the Supreme Court of our land.

They decide if a thing is constitutional...or unconstitutional...not the unnamed people who wrote the interpretations you offered.

And so far...there have been no rulings from SCOTUS that all the stuff you are ragging about is unconstitutional.

Quote:

it's the Constitution, the fourth amendment.

No it is not.

It is interpretation of the Fourth Amendment...which, as I just said, is the what the Supreme Court does.

Quote:

Many law schools and Constitutional experts agree with this interpretation.

Law schools do not agree with anything.

Some constitutional experts agree with your position...some disagree.

So???

Quote:

Not our problem you fail to understand the US Constitution.

You ought to be more concerned with what YOU do not understand about interpreting the words of the Constitution, ci.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Here, Mim and Frank, type into any search engine,
Quote:
the fourth amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures
.

If either of you disagree, please provide credible sources that challenges this fundamental rights to privacy.

The NSA's mass data collection of private communication is 'unreasonable.'

Ahhh...you, ci, have ruled that the NSA's mass data collection of private communication is 'unreasonable.

So...where in the Constitution does it say that YOU have that authority, ci.

Please provide credible sources that indicate that your decision that it is "unreasonable"...is the law of the land.

Jeez.

http://www.smiley-lol.com/smiley/humour-blague/clown-jonglerie/clown.gif

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

un·rea·son·a·ble
ˌənˈrēz(ə)nəbəl/
adjective
not guided by or based on good sense.
"your attitude is completely unreasonable"
synonyms: uncooperative, unhelpful, disobliging, unaccommodating, awkward, contrary, difficult; More
beyond the limits of acceptability or fairness.

It's well known that you lack "good sense" or understand simple words.

Most people understand that the collection of billions of American communication without court order that doesn't produce any results is not only 'unreasonable,' but a waste of our resources - besides it being illegal.

Why do you continue to insist y0ur ignorance goes beyond English grammar?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote:
un·rea·son·a·ble
ˌənˈrēz(ə)nəbəl/
adjective
not guided by or based on good sense.
"your attitude is completely unreasonable"
synonyms: uncooperative, unhelpful, disobliging, unaccommodating, awkward, contrary, difficult; More
beyond the limits of acceptability or fairness.

It's well known that you lack "good sense" or understand simple words.

That is not "well known" at all...probably because it is not so.

Quote:

Most people understand that the collection of billions of American communication without court order that doesn't produce any results is not only 'unreasonable,' but a waste of our resources - besides it being illegal.

Once again you are proclaiming that the activities are (constitutionally) "unreasonable."

Who gave you that authority?

And who gave you the authority to speak for what "most people understand?"

Quote:

Why do you continue to insist y0ur ignorance goes beyond English grammar?

You ought not to use "English grammar" as a standard, ci...you are abysmal in your understanding and usage of English grammar.

In any case, I am happy you managed to work "ignorance" into your post. I realize it gives you great pleasure to do that...which is probably why you do so very often.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, "Unreasonable" is a word that has meaning no matter in what context.

It's not about "constitutionally unreasonable" which is your interpretation. It's about unreasonable search and seizure.

http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-involved/constitution-activities/fourth-amendment/wiretaps-cell-phone-surveillance/facts-case-summary.aspx

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Frank, "Unreasonable" is a word that has meaning no matter in what context.

ci...you have been talking about "unreasonable" in the context of its use in the Fourth Amendment.

Let's restrict it to that...and you can play the avoidance game somewhere else with someone else.

Quote:

It's not about "constitutionally unreasonable" which is your interpretation. It's about unreasonable search and seizure.

Yeah...it is about being constitutionally unreasonable...because YOU brought up the Fourth Amendment.

Why are you trying to weasel out of the hole you've dug for yourself? (Oh, I see why...because you recognize that you HAVE dug the hole!)

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Yes, it's about the fourth amendment,

Quote:

. It's about unreasonable search and seizure.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

FACTS AND CASE SUMMARY: KATZ V. UNITED STATES

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
The warrantless wiretapping of a public pay phone violates the unreasonable search and seizure protections of the Fourth Amendment.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Yes, it's about the fourth amendment,
Quote:
. It's about unreasonable search and seizure.

Who gave you authority to decide what is "unreasonable" under the Fourth Amendment, ci?

Shouldn't that be left to the SCOTUS?

And they have NOT decided that anything done was "unreasonable."

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote:
FACTS AND CASE SUMMARY: KATZ V. UNITED STATES

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
The warrantless wiretapping of a public pay phone violates the unreasonable search and seizure protections of the Fourth Amendment.

Now...if ONLY you could find a decision by the SCOTUS that what the NSA is doing is wrong.

But you can't...and you apparently do not have the integrity to acknowledge that you cannot.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Why do I care what SCOTUS says? It's already the law of the land.
If you're interested, why don't you? It seems you're pretty ignorant about our Constitution, and definition of words.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Why do I care what SCOTUS says? It's already the law of the land.

And you comment on how ignorant others are of how our government works!!!

Quote:

If you're interested, why don't you?

Why don't I....what???

Quote:

It seems you're pretty ignorant about our Constitution, and definition of words.

Not really. But I understand your compulsion to think that way. It probably allows you to feel better about yourself.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

This is fun, ci.

Apparently we are both picking on you. Wink

0 Replies

So far the rulings have gone both ways.

Quote:

New York — A federal district judge dismissed on Friday a lawsuit that challenged the government’s massive domestic spying program, including the systematic collection of data from Americans' phone calls, saying it was a lawful “counter-punch” against terrorism.

The ruling, by Judge William Pauley in New York’s Southern District, comes less than two weeks after another federal judge, Richard Leon in the District of Columbia, ruled against the National Security Agency’s program, calling its bulk data collection “almost-Orwellian.”

The conflicting district court rulings illustrate once again the nation’s continuing ambivalence about national security and civil liberties, as well as some of the murky legal issues about privacy in a digital age. Judge Pauley’s decision also comes as President Obama is considering changes to the program, after mounting public concern.

source

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I always thought the thumbing function was rather childish.

0 Replies

@blatham,

Well I would rather be stupid on purpose than be brainwashed by someone trying to impose their opinion on me. All I needed to see was the pictures of him wrapped in the flag to know it was an indoctrination piece.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

The conflicting ruling by two judges only proves one thing; one doesn't understand the Constitution. The wording is very clear; there must be cause and a warrant before they can intrude into any private communication.

Case studies have already determined what constitutes unlawful search and seizure. It's called "star dicisis" in legal terms.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

You know CI, you and Frank throw that we word around quite a lot. "I" dont necessarily always agree with either of you.

2 Replies

@RABEL222,

I don't expect everybody to agree with me; I still haven't learned to walk on water. As a human, I can only express my opinion as I perceive them.

If anyone disagrees with my opinion, they can always provide the challenge to explain why, but I expect some credible support for them - just as long as it's not from FAUX SNOOZE.

Don't you think that's fair?

1 Reply

@Moment-in-Time,

Quote:

The US has our Constitution that supposed to guarantee privacy for its citizens.

I get a charge out of all you people quoting the Constitution. Show me where it defines corporations as people. But that paragon of virtue the Supreme Court somehow interperted some wording in that document to mean that they were living breathing people. Like the bible it seems one can make it say whatever is politically useful.

1 Reply

Snowdon is a dummy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know