does this sound constitutional?

[dzolcali]

but they can if they want to...isn't that the point? Even still...i wasn't just making up that idea, there really is a huge database recording calls..maybe or maybe not conversations, but phone calls none the less. From what I know again...the phone companies are starting to advertise call secracy type incentives when signing up saying that they are against people using or paying for your call records(since that's legal to do evidently) a lot of people are starting to come out about that saying it's invasion of privacy as well, it's not just the government doing this but it's sad that they would especially where it states in the first paragraph..10's of millions of everyday households who aren't suspects. That means your tax paying money is going into investigating millions of people not at fault for anything.

 

[DaffyXJ]

Preamble: We, the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for the preservation of the American Union and the existence of our civil, political and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those blessings to us and our posterity, do, for the more certain security thereof and for the better government of this State, ordain and establish this Constitution.


call me silly but I think it's not mystery who "god almighty" is...and if i don't believe in god, then why must I abide by the silly legislation these god lovers have proposed and passed in gods favor?

No you don't. You can move.

 

[Timber]

What's more shocking than most of this stuff being discussed is that JFK signed into law many executive orders that give the president the power to do just about anything he wants. When the Bush White House said it would continue its phone tapping because it was within the president's rights, they were right (unfortunately). The president could take it even further and tape anyone's conversations he wants.

 

[dzolcali]

daffy...that has already been addressed...it's not that I "can move" it's that lets say I go around shooting people with my possy of killers and you don't like it, should you have to deal with it if you want to stay in the state, or should you have to move...neither, it should cease to exist thats my point.

Timber some judge has already declared the phone tapping unconstitutional but they appealed it so they are allowed to do it for a couple more months until the case gets resolved, hopefully their appeal won't get granted, it doesn't appear there were any errors of law in the case.

 

[8Mud]

but they can if they want to...isn't that the point? Even still...i wasn't just making up that idea, there really is a huge database recording calls..maybe or maybe not conversations, but phone calls none the less. From what I know again...the phone companies are starting to advertise call secracy type incentives when signing up saying that they are against people using or paying for your call records(since that's legal to do evidently) a lot of people are starting to come out about that saying it's invasion of privacy as well, it's not just the government doing this but it's sad that they would especially where it states in the first paragraph..10's of millions of everyday households who aren't suspects. That means your tax paying money is going into investigating millions of people not at fault for anything.

Seperating the chaff from the wheat is the name of the game, right along with trying to prevent attacks, instead of just reacting to them.
If you can figure out a way to do this, without infringing on anybodies privacy, be sure and let the NSA know your solution, Im sure they would be interested.
It's typical for somebody to blame the current administration for failing to protect the public and at the same time for the public to demand privacy, due process, Habious Corpus and other civil rights not be abridged. I don't really think the legislated restricitons, make it plausible or even possible to prevent and protect seriously. When theory and practicality clash, I generally come down on the side of practicality and try to fine tune the process at a later date and placate the handwringers.
People often have a tendancy to underestimate the enemy, I assume they are at least as bright as we are and will likely have a solution to most any problem or find a way around most obsticals. Keeping the rules static (at least on our side), seems like a sure way to be outmanuvered to me.
I do think the privacy legislation should be directed at private concerns and relaxed as far as governement is concerned. Private information gatherers are much more likely IMO to have agendas, the current governement can always be voted out, if they are a bit too succesfull in there info mining operations. Where the private sector would be monitarily rewarded, most likely, for there excesses.
The potential for excess is there for both government and the private sector. I worry less about government excesses than I do aobut private sector excesses, because the governement is often much less efficient than the private sector.:roll:

 

[Timber]

Timber some judge has already declared the phone tapping unconstitutional but they appealed it so they are allowed to do it for a couple more months until the case gets resolved, hopefully their appeal won't get granted, it doesn't appear there were any errors of law in the case.

I'm aware of that. Evidently, however, the judge was unaware of certain executive orders that the president can put into effect simply by signing his name. She (the ruling judge) has been proverbially spanked by law pundits because of her drawn-out, illogically sequenced 44 page memorandum. The interesting part of it (to me) is that, IIRC, Judge Posner was basing her ruling partly on the precedent in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States. This means that, "The Supreme Court ruled that congress cannot give the president power to create laws, so it would follow that an executive order in restraint of a law, not enforcing, would be beyond the president's power." The only problem with that is that the executive order in question was created by another president over 40 years ago and remained unchallenged until now.

 

[rocklandxjer]

daffy...that has already been addressed...it's not that I "can move" it's that lets say I go around shooting people with my possy of killers and you don't like it, should you have to deal with it if you want to stay in the state, or should you have to move...neither, it should cease to exist thats my point.

killing people is against the law, and you would be captured and dealt with accordingly.

the patriot act, then, and for the time being, IS LEGAL.

yet another moot point... sorry

 

[dzolcali]

rock...i'm not high, I don't understand you..what are you talking about?

 

[TRNDRVR]

Have you heard that ACME is coming out with a new design of rocket powered roller skates? :dunno:

 

[goodburbon]

This is the kind of unproductive thing we don't need around here dan

 

[TRNDRVR]

This is the kind of unproductive thing we don't need around here dan

They're supposed to have little tiny parachutes on them so when you inadvertently fly of a 1000' cliff you're protected. :thumbup:

 

[goodburbon]

They're supposed to have little tiny parachutes on them so when you inadvertently fly of a 1000' cliff you're protected. :thumbup:

:eeks1:

 

[Beej]

This is the kind of unproductive thing we don't need around here dan

:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

 

[dzolcali]

:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

theres no laughing matter about dead bugs...

 

[Beej]

I'm not sure what that collection of words is supposed to represent, but it doesn't appear to be a sentence...

 

[TRNDRVR]

Personally I think it should be a mandated industry standard on all rocket powered roller skates. :idea:

 

[in2fords]

sorry to bring this back to topic

who knows, the answers won't be uncovered in this thread thats for sure.
but what i do know is religion is religion and government is government and if you think someone is stupid for changing from "old" or "traditional" ways then you will always be limited by that factor. Think about fiber optics, they allow us to send signals other than 1's and 0's to communicate and essentially unlock possiblities of infinate proportions...but the traditional way is binary 1's and 0's...so I guess by your logic it's ok to just be how we are and never actually step up to the plate and do something better with our minds and technology. Same applies to the preamble from my original post, once you discover your being a hypocrite or something isn't lining up right..FIX it don't continue to promote ignorance.
any who.

how can you compare technology to a few words on paper? does the word GOD offend you? so we should get rid of it completly? if your name is highly offensive to me can I make you change it? as long as we all know there is no legal ground on the refernce to religion on paper work what is the big problem?

like I said, I dont even believe in god, but I am thoughtfull enough to not force change that is unnesesary. you are trying to get the books changed because they are forcing religion on you, but by doing this you are forcing your believes on them. now if there is a law that says you must pray, or you must do something religous then I would have a problem. if all it is, is a refernce I have no problem, just translate it to mean that you have to act as an honorable person in the courtroom.

 

[Wolfe]

sorry to bring this back to topic

there was a topic?

 

[dzolcali]

sorry to bring this back to topic

how can you compare technology to a few words on paper? does the word GOD offend you? so we should get rid of it completly? if your name is highly offensive to me can I make you change it? as long as we all know there is no legal ground on the refernce to religion on paper work what is the big problem?

like I said, I dont even believe in god, but I am thoughtfull enough to not force change that is unnesesary. you are trying to get the books changed because they are forcing religion on you, but by doing this you are forcing your believes on them. now if there is a law that says you must pray, or you must do something religous then I would have a problem. if all it is, is a refernce I have no problem, just translate it to mean that you have to act as an honorable person in the courtroom.

you know what man, i'm not really offended bya nything, I don't even care honestly it's just something to talk about. I do think it's funny that people can get into debates about things like this...god and notta god who cares? ignorant people care about whether theres a god or not a god thats who cares. just forget the whole topic I quit man it's not even worth my time.

 

[Lawn Cher']

but for the other stuff, I believe correct me if this is wrong, but in a nutshell the puritans founded the 13 colonies, who each had their own seperate governments all to get away from the crown rule in England. However more over the founding fathers of "America" the land were actually from South America on up, christopher columbus was much later on the scene than many of the spanish inquisitioners, and the spanish inquisition well..they plundered and raped and murdered tons of the indiginous populations of south america before migrating upwards into the US formerly native american soil.

Conquistadors, numbnuts. Ponce de Leon, et al. He discovered the fountain of stupid, remember? Aren't you the only surviving member of that expedition?

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.