Snowdon is a dummy

@Moment-in-Time,

As I've already said, there's the Constitution, then there's the US Supreme Court.

I value the US Constitution over SCOTUS. The language of the US Constitution is quite clear on privacy. SCOTUS dances around it with impunity.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Yes, we are talking about whether they are right or wrong. It's about the US Constitution and what they swore to uphold when sworn into office.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Yes, we are talking about whether they are right or wrong. It's about the US Constitution and what they swore to uphold when sworn into office.

The Constitution says that we should be "...secure from unreasonable searches...", ci. It doesn't define what "unreasonable" is...and leaves responsibility for that elsewhere.

Who does the Constitution give the responsibility for determining what is and what is not reasonable?

You?

Me?

Or the SCOTUS?

If you are defending the Constitution, you have got to defend that also.

Right now, you are arbitrarily deciding that the searches by the NSA are "unreasonable." But that is not a responsibility you have.

I DO NOT consider what the NSA to be doing as "unreasonable."

I consider it very reasonable...necessary, in fact.

But I do not have the final say on that. The SCOTUS does. And if the SCOTUS ever rules that the actions of the NSA are unreasonable, I will have to live with that.

By refusing to rule on these things, it is accepted that they are de facto ruling in favor of the NSA actions.

You have to live with that.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

By refusing to rule on these things, it is accepted that they are de facto ruling in favor of the NSA actions.

Interesting. You argue with c.i. what is the "de iure", but use use (literally and even written) 'de facto'.

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Since the Supreme Court has not ruled on NSA, right now what they are doing is not illegal even though officially no ruling has been made.

Quote:

De jure (/dɨ ˈdʒʊəriː/, /deɪ-/;[1][2] Classical Latin de iúre [dɛ ˈjuːrɛ]) is an expression that means "concerning law", as contrasted with de facto, which means "concerning fact". The terms de jure and de facto are used instead of "in law" and "in practice", respectively, when one is describing political or legal situations.

source

1 Reply

@Moment-in-Time,

Well, that is interesting. Also glad congress is open to modifications and changes.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

I value the US Constitution over SCOTUS. The language of the US Constitution is quite clear on privacy. SCOTUS dances around it with impunity.

Sometimes SCOTUS can do things right.....look at their leaving Gay marriages up to the state. They made some people very, very happy. Then again, they show their partisanship. The point is, for the time being, SCOTUS is all there is.

You also seem to forget that the US constitution is subject to amendments....see its archive and its several amendments: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

The NSA program as it stands today, is not the finality or ultimate conclusion of said program but it is truly in the process of constant change and growth, especially as we come forth with better technology which just might make obsolete the part which you find so repulsively invasive. The consummate good NSA does, in the opinion of many experts, take precedence over some Americans' concern regarding their privacy, which for the most part will never be actually listened in on or read anyway and, which has already been imposed upon from many sources in a more threatening way....for instance, with expert hackers accessing some people's bank accounts, depleting savings...that's more worrying to me than NSA who doesn't know me from Adam. If Edward Snowden had not stolen classified documents, you would not be in any worse shape than you are now. Even though Senator Dianne Feinstein, on the Intelligence Committee, is opposed to the NSA listening in on the cabinet hearings, she still remains staunchly opposed to shutting down this National Security Program but hopes for targeted future modifications to it....soon.

3 Replies

@Moment-in-Time,

Moment-in-Time wrote:

....for instance, with expert hackers accessing some people's bank accounts, depleting savings...that's more worrying to me than NSA who doesn't know me from Adam.

I certainly would expect that a governmental agency doesn't act like criminals.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

Correct. And quite a few say that the NSA is de facto acting illegally.

3 Replies

@Moment-in-Time,

Quote:

The consummate good NSA does, in the opinion of many experts, take precedence over some Americans' concern regarding their privacy,

Well I agree they are doing some good by forcing the adoption of secure encryption technology and standards. In fact creating a demand for cell phones with technology that does not allow even the makers to read their information and for secure email services and on and on.

By their very very bad behaviors they are also opening up opportunity for non-US firms to take away such businesses as cloud storages to router hardwares from US firms.

If I was either a none US software of hardware internet company I would just love the NSA.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

Moment-in-Time wrote:
....for instance, with expert hackers accessing some people's bank accounts, depleting savings...that's more worrying to me than NSA who doesn't know me from Adam.

Quote:

I certainly would expect that a governmental agency doesn't act like criminals.

I believe you have misinterpreted my post, Walter Hinteler. I intended to convey the reality that Americans are already compromised from many approaches.....surely even you should be able to acknowledge that! Why would you relay the impression I'm intimating the US government might be acting in a criminal manner?!

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

Correct. And quite a few say that the NSA is de facto acting illegally.

Well they could say it until the cows come home but it don't make it so.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

Quote:

Well they could say it until the cows come home but it don't make it so.

Bingo!

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

And quite a few say that the NSA is de facto acting illegally.

....and for these "quite a few" to have their case taken credibly it would have to be taken to a court of law, proving that NSA is acting illegally.....would you not agree?! Until such is deemed "de facto acting illegally" by determinative powers, one doesn't have much justification to state thus.

1 Reply

@Moment-in-Time,

Indeed. Then it would become "de iure".

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
By refusing to rule on these things, it is accepted that they are de facto ruling in favor of the NSA actions.

Interesting. You argue with c.i. what is the "de iure", but use use (literally and even written) 'de facto'.

What????

Walter, in the United States, if the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case...whatever way it has been settled by a lower court (or by no court) prevails.

Unless the SCOTUS rules that the actions of the NSA ARE "unreasonable search"...

...they simply are not.

My use of de facto was correct.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Correct. And quite a few say that the NSA is de facto acting illegally.

But those "quite a few" are not the SCOTUS. Only what the SCOTUS rules applies.

And even then...the congress can over-rule the decision by passing laws (that have to pass muster with the SCOTUS) to make the definition conform to something other than what the SCOTUS originally decides.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I don't have a different opinion at all. That's why I used 'de facto' and not 'de iure'.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

For a moment there I was slightly confused by the two words when I was so sure I knew them well and deleted my post. On closer examination I have come up with this google description:

de facto/de jure

"Phrases, “de facto” and “de jure,” are closely related concepts. De facto means a state of affairs that is true in fact, but that is not officially sanctioned. In contrast, de jure means a state of affairs that is in accordance with law (i.e. that is officially sanctioned). Most commonly, these phrases are used to describe the source of a business or governmental leader’s authority, but they apply to a wide variety of situations. Here are some example sentences that use the phrases:

“Our country is going through some very difficult times. We have an elected prime minister, but he has no actual power. Instead, the general who sits at the head of the military is the de facto ruler of the nation.”
“I know that, de jure, this is supposed to be a parking lot, but now that the flood has left four feet of water here, it’s a de facto swimming pool.”
“We understand that these are the de facto bounds of your manufacturing facility, but what do the official land records and surveys show? Is that mountain of scrap rubber over there encroaching on anyone else’s property?”
“The rest of the world considers your company to be a U.S. corporation, but where is your de jure jurisdiction of incorporation? If it’s somewhere offshore, we might have a P.R. issue on our hands.”

As you can see, de facto refers to situations that are true for practical reasons, whereas de jure refers to formal, official status of the matter.

http://onlinelaw.wustl.edu/legal-english-de-factode-jure/

0 Replies

ci...

...Snowden agrees with your assessment.

Fugitive leaker Edward Snowden said Saturday he believes the Supreme Court will review the legality of the U.S. government's mass surveillance programs and ultimately find them unconstitutional.

"These programs themselves are unconstitutional," Snowden said during an interview with journalist Jane Mayer at the New Yorker festival in New York City. "I am confident that the Supreme Court will agree these programs went too far."

Snowden cited a ruling by a federal judge last year that found the National Security Agency's bulk collection of American phone records likely unconstitutional as one reason for his confidence. He also noted that two presidential advisory panels have raised concerns about the lack of judicial oversight of the agency's programs.

National Journal report.

If he is right...things will go your way at the SCOTUS.

We'll see. They almost have to tackle it at some point.

1 Reply

Snowdon is a dummy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know