Mass of an ass going critical

[mean mr.mustard]

I'm not strawmanning a damn thing.

I'm just thankful privacy still exists.

It's up to you to find purpose or intent or lack thereof.

Some would argue anything.

"The constitution doesn't say assault rifles explicitly..."

 

[White Beard]

Ummmm..... you mean like the above statement and link?

Certainly some level of privacy protection can be inferred from the amendments. However, the overt intent was obviously to protect the new citizens of the US from the abuses that they had previously suffered under British rule, or that other governments had imposed on their citizens.

There is an endless stream of "would've, could've, should've" games that could be played with "interpreting" the Constitution to attach whatever meaning one wants to it. Or, of course, we could simply follow the document with some allowances for changes in verbiage over time.

You are indeed correct: there’s no end of games to be played with the interpretations of our founding documents.

Witness the link you shared. It’s a very partisan document, supported by a host of extreme “conservative” influences as listed under references. It, like most such, amplifies the importance of the State while minimizing the importance of the individual. It’s not hard to interpret the article, or to notice that it’s free of any of the expansive understanding that was the hallmark of the founders. It is A way of interpreting the constitution, but the document is not “decoded” in any way by it, and my understanding of the articles discussed is not increased or expanded by reading it.

For the purposes of the commentary, it, too, is blind to the pervading assumption that property and possessions were worth protecting because of the rights of citizens, NOT ALL OF WHICH WERE ENUMERATED.

 

[igrowone]

What about the election 2 years ago that one side of the country is still asshurt about? Inb4 muh Russia.... 2 years of investigation and still literally NOTHING on trump... this is the double standard so frequently ignored.

what about the election from 2 years ago? well, it was 2 years ago
time moves forward and a 'new' congress is elected
2 years of investigation results from other processes independent of elections
which is how it is supposed to work, i.e. factual findings not politics
and Clinton was investigated for years, and plenty of other democrats, republicans
this is the 1st time law(imho) enforcement has been accused of hating on the right

 

[rives]

You are indeed correct: there’s no end of games to be played with the interpretations of our founding documents.

Witness the link you shared. It’s a very partisan document, supported by a host of extreme “conservative” influences as listed under references. It, like most such, amplifies the importance of the State while minimizing the importance of the individual. It’s not hard to interpret the article, or to notice that it’s free of any of the expansive understanding that was the hallmark of the founders. It is A way of interpreting the constitution, but the document is not “decoded” in any way by it, and my understanding of the articles discussed is not increased or expanded by reading it.

For the purposes of the commentary, it, too, is blind to the pervading assumption that property and possessions were worth protecting because of the rights of citizens, NOT ALL OF WHICH WERE ENUMERATED.

You present a pretty bizarre interpretation of the linked article - "amplifies the importance of the State while minimizing the importance of the individual." In actuality, it repeatedly expresses the exact opposite.

And no, not all of our rights are enumerated, which again has nothing to do with your argument that the Amendment was rooted in a concept which was never mentioned or formalized for another 200 years. The foundation was actually based on limiting the government's power to search, seize, plant evidence, or simply look around until they found something that would facilitate prosecution.

"Privacy" is legally defined as the freedom from unauthorized intrusion. The 4th Amendment seeks to put limits on AUTHORIZED intrusion by the government.

 

[Zeez]

Over reach into what?

That's one of his favorites.

It's like fox news - Sources tell us...... And then you know it's bullshit.

 

[packerfan79]

That's one of his favorites.

It's like CNN - Sources tell us...... And then you know it's bullshit.

You made a small mistake don't worry, I fixed it for you. No need to thank me. Just doing my civic duty.

 

[Zeez]

You made a small mistake don't worry, I fixed it for you.

Just what we need - Another Fixer.

 

[rives]

That's one of his favorites.

It's like fox news - Sources tell us...... And then you know it's bullshit.

Perhaps you should actually read the text of the 4th Amendment to see what they were trying to limit.

Of course, we do understand that for those of your political persuasion, the Constitution IS bullshit and in need of updating to satisfy your tender mores.

 

[Zeez]

Perhaps you should actually read the text of the 4th Amendment to see what they were trying to limit.

Of course, we do understand that for those of your political persuasion, the Constitution IS bullshit and in need of updating to satisfy your tender mores.

4th amendment - each man’s home is his castle. ???????

You live in a make believe world full of stereotypes.

 

[igrowone]

more fun today, see the accusation of fraud?
little Donald was the recipient of millions back in his childhood days(from daddy)
the nytimes has yelled 'tax fraud!' on this
strong words, one more ring for the circus? i can't count the number of rings anymore

 

[rives]

4th amendment - each man’s home is his castle. ???????

You live in a make believe world full of stereotypes.

I thought that the original question was too silly to dignify with an answer, but obviously there are those of you who are deeply confused.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Would you say that limiting overreach and limiting search and seizure would result in the preservation of privacy?

 

[rives]

Would you say that limiting overreach and limiting search and seizure would result in the preservation of privacy?

Not according to the legal definition of privacy that I posted above, but yes, it would be a side benefit of not having the government poking through your shit.

The primary benefit and original intent, however, is them not being able to confiscate said shit or to prosecute you for it's possession.

 

[Zeez]

New York Times just dropped a big one documenting several trump tax fraud schemes. Hundreds of millions of dollars in tax fraud with money siphoned from daddy Fred.

Time for the extra strong Kool-aid.

 

[rives]

My, the NYT has been busy...

In other news, their investigative efforts revealed that Kavanaugh threw ice at another customer in a bar in 1985!!!

 

[Gry]

Washington Times Seth Rich retraction 2 days ago is worth mentioning.

 

[Gry]

New York Times just dropped a big one documenting several trump tax fraud schemes. Hundreds of millions of dollars in tax fraud with money siphoned from daddy Fred.

Time for the extra strong Kool-aid.

Heard another interesting interview with David Cay Johnson on that one.
Find it incredibly interesting to hear back ground and a little bit of detail on some of the things he has done.

Can't over look Bush doing the back scenes lobby routine for dear pal Brett who had been an ace in the hole for Florida.

Those for whom rules are applied very differently.

 

[Ignignokt]

David Cay Johnston has been writing about Trump for years, he knows how how much of a phony he is....

It seems he received at least $413 million from his dad, i wonder what his actual worth is?

 

[mean mr.mustard]

.

 

[Badfishy1]

Washington Times Seth Rich retraction 2 days ago is worth mentioning.

Trash bait but I’ll bite. What is even more interesting is KDC hasn’t retracted any statements. Why? Because he has PROOF the DNC emails went SR>KDC>WL. Washington Times has no ‘verifiable source’ as neither WL nor KDC will verify it on WT behalf. Each have their own reason why they won’t verify it. Whether you agree with the reasoning or not is another story. KDC has quite a large bank account for the rich family to go after.