X. Benedict Posted December 19, 2005 Posted December 19, 2005 Actually, given the existing precedents that don't allow one to patent or copyright one's DNA, I would not be surprised if my left nut was in fact legally a public testicle.. 536857[/snapback] Yes. But if you publish all those Christmas Party Xerox's from folks sitting on the copier, then ironically, you can keep your ass out of the public domain for 70 years after death.
VABills Posted December 19, 2005 Posted December 19, 2005 Actually, given the existing precedents that don't allow one to patent or copyright one's DNA, I would not be surprised if my left nut was in fact legally a public testicle.. 536857[/snapback] Again, because of an activist court only is the 4th amendment tied to public phone booth privacy. http://www.free-essays.us/dbase/c2/arn130.shtml Justice Black dissented, he could not concur because he could not make the amendment say what it didn’t know when it was written, “I will not distort the words of the amendment in order to keep the constitution up to date (Katzen 15).” He believes that privacy is that only explained in the fourth Amendment and no general right is granted, by the amendment so as to give this court the unlimited power to hold unconstitutional everything which affects privacy...the framers...did not intend to grant this court such omnipotent lawmaking authority as that...for these reasons I respectfully dissent(Katzen 15). Again I agree with Justice Black, and not a set of activist justices, who will now likely overturn the Katz decision based on some lawsuit likely to come from these actions.
Mickey Posted December 19, 2005 Posted December 19, 2005 Actually, given the existing precedents that don't allow one to patent or copyright one's DNA, I would not be surprised if my left nut was in fact legally a public testicle.. 536857[/snapback] And therefore susceptible to police seizure. Testicle Seizure, the scourge of our times.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 19, 2005 Posted December 19, 2005 Again, because of an activist court only is the 4th amendment tied to public phone booth privacy. http://www.free-essays.us/dbase/c2/arn130.shtml Again I agree with Justice Black, and not a set of activist justices, who will now likely overturn the Katz decision based on some lawsuit likely to come from these actions. 536890[/snapback] In other words, you do not believe the Constitution protects the rights of the individual.
Johnny Coli Posted December 19, 2005 Posted December 19, 2005 In other words, you do not believe the Constitution protects the rights of the individual. 536919[/snapback] It's all starting to make sense now.
Mickey Posted December 19, 2005 Posted December 19, 2005 Again, because of an activist court only is the 4th amendment tied to public phone booth privacy. http://www.free-essays.us/dbase/c2/arn130.shtml Again I agree with Justice Black, and not a set of activist justices, who will now likely overturn the Katz decision based on some lawsuit likely to come from these actions. 536890[/snapback] Putting aside that the courts ruling was essentially enacted into law by the Omnibus Crime Control...Act of 1968 so that it is now federal statutory law as well as constitutional precedent, the vote was 7-1 in that case. Were all 7 judicial activists? As for Black's dissent, on that line of thought anything that is not verbal speech wouldn't be protected by the "free speech" clause. At most it would protect hand written and verbal speech only. A digital political cartoon at Slate for example, would not be protected. It never ceases to amaze me that those who argue the most against "big government" are the biggest supporters of defining the constitution so narrowly that the protections it provides to individuals as against the government are rendered useless thus allowing unlimited governmental power.
Kelly the Dog Posted December 19, 2005 Posted December 19, 2005 Watching Rice answer Russert's questions, I would bet my life it was completely illegal. She didn't even try to answer the question, which he repeated about four times.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 19, 2005 Posted December 19, 2005 Watching Rice answer Russert's questions, I would bet my life it was completely illegal. She didn't even try to answer the question, which he repeated about four times. 536951[/snapback] THAT, on the other hand, might be an exaggeration. There's certainly ample precedent for unilmited wiretapping sans due process by the government in wartime. The real question then becomes: how "real" a war is the war on terrorism? VABills might have had more success had he chosen that argument, rather than the constitutional angle. I suspect, however, that he has more fun trying to argue about things he doesn't understand...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted December 19, 2005 Posted December 19, 2005 Do you think the government spied on me talking dirty to the wife? I think I even sang 'You dropped a bomb on me' to her over the phone...should I worry?
Johnny Coli Posted December 19, 2005 Posted December 19, 2005 Watching Rice answer Russert's questions, I would bet my life it was completely illegal. She didn't even try to answer the question, which he repeated about four times. 536951[/snapback] Of course it's illegal, and of course they all knew it was illegal. I still don't see why they couldn't use the legal route, anyway, other than their own arrogance. They don't even have to have a warrant up front, just within 72 hours. It makes no sense. And now W wants to find out who leaked the info. Wonder if he'll try harder finding this leak than he did trying to find the Plame leak?
PastaJoe Posted December 19, 2005 Posted December 19, 2005 And now W wants to find out who leaked the info. Wonder if he'll try harder finding this leak than he did trying to find the Plame leak? 536974[/snapback] According to Robert Novak, Bush already knows who the leaker was.
Johnny Coli Posted December 19, 2005 Posted December 19, 2005 According to Robert Novak, Bush already knows who the leaker was. 536990[/snapback] Maybe we should tap his phone.
VABills Posted December 19, 2005 Posted December 19, 2005 This from August: http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/10/opinion/edkeefe.php
UConn James Posted December 19, 2005 Posted December 19, 2005 I know (see my responses in the First Amendment thread on the football side of the board)...but I didn't want to mention it just yet. Let's clear up the whole public vs. private property issue first, before we get into more complex concepts like fee-based services... 536852[/snapback] Funny how someone who railed against the eminent domain ruling is so quick to forfeit the rights to private holdings of someone else. Oh wait. This is VA-lahjik. Carry on!
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 19, 2005 Posted December 19, 2005 Maybe we should tap his phone. 536995[/snapback] You can't...unless it's a pay phone.
VABills Posted December 19, 2005 Posted December 19, 2005 Funny how someone who railed against the eminent domain ruling is so quick to forfeit the rights to private holdings of someone else. Oh wait. This is VA-lahjik. Carry on! 537017[/snapback] Had nothing to do with other citizens tapping your phone. But in the interest of National Security I have to believe that if a captured transmission has a US citizen planning terrorist acts against the US I would want the government to take action on it. Nowehere did I say put them on a the internet for public consumption. Of course if it ever came out that the US captured sigint from a cellphone in the US, and didn't act, then I can be assurred that all you idiots would blame Bush for not taking action since the NSA knew it, since it was captured. Talking about !@#$ed up uconn lahjick.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 19, 2005 Posted December 19, 2005 Had nothing to do with other citizens tapping your phone. But in the interest of National Security I have to believe that if a captured transmission has a US citizen planning terrorist acts against the US I would want the government to take action on it. Nowehere did I say put them on a the internet for public consumption. Of course if it ever came out that the US captured sigint from a cellphone in the US, and didn't act, then I can be assurred that all you idiots would blame Bush for not taking action since the NSA knew it, since it was captured. Talking about !@#$ed up uconn lahjick. 537028[/snapback] Jesus. Keep digging, man. You should have gone with my earlier advice.
UConn James Posted December 19, 2005 Posted December 19, 2005 Jesus. Keep digging, man. You should have gone with my earlier advice. 537035[/snapback] Leave 'im alone. He's on a roll.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 19, 2005 Posted December 19, 2005 Leave 'im alone. He's on a roll. 537038[/snapback] It's rare that you an I agree on any topic...but it's practically a law of nature that, when we do, it involves VABills saying something stupid...
VABills Posted December 19, 2005 Posted December 19, 2005 Leave 'im alone. He's on a roll. 537038[/snapback] Well good for you. You get all high and fucing mighty, and when the big bad us citizen doesn't get his cellphone sig capture and he blows up your work building or someones building that you love, don't go !@#$ing whining to me. Because I will just say i told you so.
Recommended Posts