Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Jose', can you see?

And so the Constitutional debate continues over at CapitalistImperialistPig.


Here are some annotations on the Constitution and the Fourth Amendment:

Valid Searches and Seizures Without Warrants

Detention Short of Arrest: Stop–and–Frisk
Search Incident to Arrest
Vehicular Searches
Vessel Searches
Consent Searches
Border Searches
Public Schools
Government Offices
Prisons and Regulation of Probation
Drug Testing


Click the following link for an in-depth, though dated because it cites no cases beyond 1982, examination of Electronic Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment.

footnote 153 from that link:

The case [Katz v. United States, 1967] contains a clear suggestion that the Court would approve a congressional provision for a different standard of probable cause in national security cases. “We recognize that domestic security surveillance may involve different policy and practical considerations from the surveillance of ‘ordinary crime.’ The gathering of security intelligence is often long range and involves the interrelation of various sources and types of information. The exact targets of such surveillance may be more difficult to identify than in surveillance operations against many types of crimes specified in Title III. Often, too, the emphasis of domestic intelligence gathering is on the prevention of unlawful activity or the enhancement of the Government’s preparedness for some future crisis or emergency. . . . Different standards may be compatible with the Fourth Amendment if they are reasonable both in relation to the legitimate need of Government for intelligence information and the protected rights of our citizens. For the warrant application may vary according to the governmental interest to be enforced and the nature of citizen rights deserving protection. . . . It may be that Congress, for example, would judge that the application and affidavit showing probable cause need not follow the exact requirements of Sec. 2518 but should allege other circumstances more appropriate to domestic security cases. . . .” Id. at 322–23.


Mr. Pig says that our founding fathers, among others, "distrusted unlimited executive power." Well, sure, we all do. Their concern was that America didn't become another England. But they also restricted voting rights to white, male property owners and had 'good' reasons for doing that considering their time and place. But we have grown as a country and things change. The Constitution and its interpretation has changed too (and will continute to evolve). I don't see how people can logically conclude that Bush has exercised "unlimited executive power." I'm reminded of Truman's famous sign, "The buck stops here." The Executive Branch has got to have some final say about some things, especially if we are to call the President The Commander in Chief. What does that imply? Simply, it means that in issues of war and national security there must be a strong, singular leader who can cut through all the bureaucratic bullshit and willy-nilly political crap and say, "Git-R-Done!" (thanks to Larry the Cable Guy).

Ignorant dumbass or not, I do feel safer today than I was on Sept. 10, 2001. I ain't no feminazi. I like to be taken care of by a strong man (or men if that's what it takes). As for Bush setting some slipperly slope precedents that will lead our country into some totalitarian regime, that's just ridiculous, except coming from someone who has such a low estimation of all our government branches that he thinks they all will fail. Is that what you think Mr. Pig? Is your faith in the American way and the American system and the American people so low that you honestly believe that we are in danger of losing all of our freedoms? For someone who sees the world that way I guess it is a natural response to cry, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

Oh, say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro' the perilous fight'
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming.
And the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?...

Oh, thus be it ever when free men shall stand,
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation;
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Power that has made and preserved us as a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust";
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.


First and last stanzas of The Star-Spangled Banner.

8 comments:

mr_g said...

I don't think it's an indictment of the American people or the American way of life to be concerned about dangerouos precedent. I think human nature dictates concern..the sheep mentality knows no cultural boundaries. Most herd members will swollow whatever the shepherd throws their way without question. And lately in this country, people who DO question, which is as patriotic as the right to bear arms, are labeled Un-American or Un-Patriotic for not supporting the Trust-Fund-Baby-In-Chief. (And to think my liberal friends call me conservative!)

madman said...

In the 40's the Japanese Americans were sent to internment camps and lost all they own.

In the 50's people lost their jobs and right to work because they had attended legal political meetings--this was called the "Red Scare"

In the 60's people were audited and harassed by the federal government for exercising their right to march and protest.

In the 70's Nixon went nuts with power and committed felonies and slanderd individuals.

The victims temporailly lost all their freedoms, and some lost everything.

All of that was some totalitarian bullshit that started with a very slippery slope--all done in the name of National Security.

Now that being said--if some FBI agent thinks we are in danger--Fuck the warrant and arrest somebody. We can sort out right from wrong next week.

CapitalistImperialistPig said...

RA - I like to be taken care of by a strong man

Excuse me! I had you confused with the Rae Ann who believed in self-reliance.

The attraction to the "strong man," the man on horseback, has been the death of many a republic.

You might want to include Article II, Section 2 in your Constitutional studies.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

He is the Commander in Chief of the military, not the country - there is a pretty big difference.

RA - Is that what you think Mr. Pig? Is your faith in the American way and the American system and the American people so low that you honestly believe that we are in danger of losing all of our freedoms?

Well, Miz Rae Ann, I have plenty of faith in our institutions, if only we are willing to uphold them. The most important institution of the Republic is a vigilant citizenry, zealous in its protection of its freedoms. The second most important is the Constitution. You are telling the citizenry "pay no attention, there's nothing to see here," and telling us to forget about the Constitution and the separation of powers.

The remaining institutions are the Executive, the Legislature, and the Courts. The Executive is asserting the right to ignore laws and the constitution, while the Legislature is so busy stealing the country blind that they can't be bothered. The courts are yet to be heard from, but if the citizens follow your advice, it doesn't matter.

Very fortunately, most of your fellow citizens do seem to be waking up to the incompetence, corruption and fecklessness of this weak and dim "leader."

I just hope it isn't too late.

Mr. CI Pig
(Ph.D if you want to be snooty about it)

Rae Ann said...

mr g and madman, I've looked into my crystal ball and have seen that there will be no holocaust or totalitarian regime in our future. From now on I'll take Stevie Nicks's advice and "keep my visions to myself."

Dr. Pig, "Yeth, Doctah!" (alluding to Little Shop of Horrors) Did you miss my New Feminist definition?

Hey, why don't we just start ourselves a new little movement to oust all of the current 'leaders'? Is that calling for insurrection/rebellion? Did I just forfeit all my rights by saying that? Are the feds going to come after me now? Seriously, I'm not calling for us to ignore the checks and balances and separation of powers. I'm just saying that it sounds like some people think that checks and balances and separation mean nullifying and dissolution of powers.

I think maybe the precedent of saying that 'separate but equal' was invalid during the civil rights/segregation debates has filtered out into the general opinions of people. It seems that many are implying that separate branches of government CANNOT be equal by virtue of being separate. I'm not explaining my point very well, but I see this as an overall trend in thought and society. If we can't have separate but equal facilities for people then they assume that we can't have separate but equal branches of government. (This is a 'new' thought so I haven't thought it through yet. Give me some slack. I ain't no stinkin' PhD. lol)

Assorted Babble by Suzie said...

I admit I skimmed thru the comments but did not read them entirely. However I did read your first line....Don't you dare keep your visions to yourself. We all have different opinions, and... on this I totally agree with you.

Yeah, anyone should question things, but do your homework and research things...Get the facts....for your answers.

I feel the followinng: (I wrote this first below-before adding the top part)
No it is based on DOWN RIGHT HATRED for BUSH...They are like a bulldog that will not let go...and twist anything to their view on the matter no matter what the amendment says. FACT is FACT, not bias reporting or agendas...

P.S. WE ARE SAFER THAN BEFORE SEPT 11th.

CapitalistImperialistPig said...

Rae Ann - "Yeth, Doctah!"

I love Little Shop - the play and the movie. One of the many unrequited goals of my theatrical career was getting to play the Steve Martin part. Nowadays, Mr. Mushnik would be more my speed - or maybe the Jack Nicholson/Bill Murray part.

Trivia Quiz: Without looking it up, what was the Jack N character's name. Crossword hint: Darwin's bulldog's prey.

Rae Ann said...

cip, you've got me on that one. All I can think of is "Candybar, candybar!" I've never been good at crossword puzzles.. lol

CapitalistImperialistPig said...

Wilbur Force (I looked it up). I liked your answer better.

Thomas Huxley, AKA Darwin's Bulldog, debated Bishop Samuel Wilberforce in the famous "monkey's uncle" debate of 1860.