The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
4th Amendment wrote: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 probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
How do you figure that? We're constantly told by those who support big government that if the government does something to you that is against the law you have recourse in the courts. I don't really care what the basis is, the decision denies redress leaving any consequences (of which there have been none) to the good graces of whatever government agency is doing the wiretapping --so effectively it does allow wiretapping without warrants. Now, I'm not so naive to believe this changes anything....the rule of law is over in this country....and the government no doubt wiretaps whoever it pleases without warrants, and has plenty of dodges to get around the law anyway.....but this decision just facilitates more lawlessness.TxLobo wrote:uhhh...
I think the headline of the "news" story is somewhat misleading. The 9th CC didn't "ok" wiretapping warrants,
basically it says: "ongoing attempts to hold the executive branch responsible for intercepting telephone conversations without judicial authorization,”
So all the court did was confirm "Sovereign Immunity"
The court transcription is here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/o ... -15468.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
without the hype of the news media.
I know what it is, what I'm saying is that use of it in this situation is essentially an end run around the Constitution. The Rule of Law is dead, and you don't have to look very far for examples: 1) Holder, in civil and criminal contempt of Congress --nothing being done, or will be done; 2) John Corozine, buddy of Holder, stole at least $1 billion right out in front of everyone, broke numerous laws....nothing being done, nothing will be done; ) Black Panthers, opening soliciting kidnapping and murder, nothing done, nothing will be done. My point being that you can't depend on the government to police itself when it doesn't even police egregious nationally know law breakers.TxLobo wrote:VMI77 wrote:How do you figure that? We're constantly told by those who support big government that if the government does something to you that is against the law you have recourse in the courts. I don't really care what the basis is, the decision denies redress leaving any consequences (of which there have been none) to the good graces of whatever government agency is doing the wiretapping --so effectively it does allow wiretapping without warrants. Now, I'm not so naive to believe this changes anything....the rule of law is over in this country....and the government no doubt wiretaps whoever it pleases without warrants, and has plenty of dodges to get around the law anyway.....but this decision just facilitates more lawlessness.TxLobo wrote:uhhh...
I think the headline of the "news" story is somewhat misleading. The 9th CC didn't "ok" wiretapping warrants,
basically it says: "ongoing attempts to hold the executive branch responsible for intercepting telephone conversations without judicial authorization,”
So all the court did was confirm "Sovereign Immunity"
The court transcription is here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/o ... -15468.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
without the hype of the news media.
ANALYSIS
I. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
The key and dispositive issue on appeal is whether the government
waived sovereign immunity under FISA’s civil liability
provision,2 50 U.S.C. § 1810. Contrary to the district
court’s reliance on implied waiver, “[a] waiver of sovereign
immunity cannot be implied but must be unequivocally
expressed.” United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538
(1980) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We have the benefit of the Supreme Court’s most recent
pronouncement in this area. Earlier this year, the Court interpreted
the waiver provision of the Privacy Act of 1974,
which, like FISA, protects individuals against the government’s
collection, use, and disclosure of information. FAA v.
Cooper, 132 S.Ct. 1441, 1448 (2012). According to the Privacy
Act, “the United States shall be liable to [an] individual
in an amount equal to the sum of . . . actual damages.” 5
Well, there is still "rule of law" for us little people. If you're singled out for a political prosecution like Mr. Zimmerman they'll bring the whole weight of the State down upon you. As long as you're off the radar screen of the ruling "elites" the law will probably be enforced about the same as what you're used to. However, if you should, for example, happen to have funds with a regime Crony, like Corozine, then you can kiss your money goodbye and there is nothing you can do about it --'cause the laws don't apply to the people in power. This transition has occurred in a mere 40 years, from the time the Nixon administration feared legal consequences for comparatively trivial law breaking, administration officials went to prison, and a president had to resign, until the Obamanation, where numerous felonies, including Treason and murder are laughed off with impunity.mamabearCali wrote:It occurs to me that this is a pretty dangerous time in our country. When a country's govt is 100% corrupt (like Mexico) you know it is and you can act accordingly and no one trusts the gov't, so people work things out between themselves. When there is the perception of rule of law, though the govt is corrupt, some will still trust the gov't and trust that we have rule of law. That makes for cases like Zimmerman and like the poor fellow in Oregon with his water system. The system is corrupt and failing, but most people don't know it yet so they get it in the neck, but no one knows about it or cries about it because we assume rule of law exists when in fact it is broken. Truly scary.
Tyrants always do whatever they want until the people stand up and stop them. It's been that way for thousands of years.Dave2 wrote:I think the 9th Circuit Court is saying the government can do whatever it wants regardless of legality, and we can only object (sometimes) if they get caught.
It's the 9th Circuit—THE most overturned appellate court in the entire United States. And by the way, this is liberal ideology at work. A conservative court might have more respect for the 4th Amendment than that.Dave2 wrote:I think the 9th Circuit Court is saying the government can do whatever it wants regardless of legality, and we can only object (sometimes) if they get caught.
Wired.com: Appeals Court OKs Warrantless Wiretapping
Engadget: Federal appeals court says warrantless wiretapping is legal
Yeah, but it's gotta get to the SCoTUS first, and even then Roberts might just declare it a tax.The Annoyed Man wrote:It's the 9th Circuit—THE most overturned appellate court in the entire United States. And by the way, this is liberal ideology at work. A conservative court might have more respect for the 4th Amendment than that.Dave2 wrote:I think the 9th Circuit Court is saying the government can do whatever it wants regardless of legality, and we can only object (sometimes) if they get caught.
Wired.com: Appeals Court OKs Warrantless Wiretapping
Engadget: Federal appeals court says warrantless wiretapping is legal
About your comment...Dave2 wrote:Yeah, but it's gotta get to the SCoTUS first, and even then Roberts might just declare it a tax.The Annoyed Man wrote:It's the 9th Circuit—THE most overturned appellate court in the entire United States. And by the way, this is liberal ideology at work. A conservative court might have more respect for the 4th Amendment than that.Dave2 wrote:I think the 9th Circuit Court is saying the government can do whatever it wants regardless of legality, and we can only object (sometimes) if they get caught.
Wired.com: Appeals Court OKs Warrantless Wiretapping
Engadget: Federal appeals court says warrantless wiretapping is legal
, then I was 
, and I wound up .