SCOTUS: Police can read your text messages without warrant

[SemperFiUSMC]

WhimperFi sides with the state and mocks our rights. How unexpected.

I gave a reasoned way to avoid having your phone violated. Other than being the litttle boy who cries wolf what have you suggested?

How's that complaint going? No news posted yet.

 

[bigg cheese]

If it's on your person and you're arrested, too bad. Someone posted a video not too long ago about what you should do at a traffic stop, one of the things was to (when asked to get out of the car, leave anything you don't want searched in the vehicle, and lock it when you get out. If asked about a search, state that you don't consent. ( I don't even text at all.. only 27 and I'm an old fogie )

For this reason and others, I do very little financial/personal email on portable devices. I've even looked into whole drive encryption. Good luck cracking it.

 

[jsgolfman]

Can we not have everyone of Rambones threads turn into some personal indictment of him? If you've got a personal beef, take it to PM. I'd really like to read a few threads on this forum without having to wade through a mountain of personal attacks in every one.

 

[RockofStrength]

Can we not have everyone of Rambones threads turn into some personal indictment of him? If you've got a personal beef, take it to PM. I'd really like to read a few threads on this forum without having to wade through a mountain of personal attacks in every one.

But if they can make Rambone look bad, then the point he is making is false because...because...

Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[eatsnopaste]

"But if they can make Rambone look bad, then the point he is making is false because...because..."

But not everything he says is false, in fact most is not. HOWEVER, if he would stop using extremely misleading headlines for his threads and cut down on the hyperbole just a smidgen..maybe the attacks would lighten up a bit...maybe

 

[rjstew317]

"But if they can make Rambone look bad, then the point he is making is false because...because..."

But not everything he says is false, in fact most is not. HOWEVER, if he would stop using extremely misleading headlines for his threads and cut down on the hyperbole just a smidgen..maybe the attacks would lighten up a bit...maybe

^^^ agreed ^^^^

While I don't always (or rarely) agree with Ram's point of view, I do think he keeps things interesting here in the political forums. At the very least he gets the debates rolling

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Can we not have everyone of Rambones threads turn into some personal indictment of him? If you've got a personal beef, take it to PM. I'd really like to read a few threads on this forum without having to wade through a mountain of personal attacks in every one.

But if they can make Rambone look bad, then the point he is making is false because...because...

Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not true. First, not an ad hom. It is valid to seek his suggestion, knowing full well he has none, and point out his incessent hypocrisy. Second, stripping away his hyperbole and misleading statements, I do not disagree in principle with much of what he says. His presentation borders on lies at times. Third, his holier-than-thou attitude is difficult to stomach, especially when he is unable to practice what he preaches. And finally his hypocrisy knows no bounds. While he presents valid issues, his presentation is meant to incite and appeal to emotion, not reason.

 

[steveh_131]

Yes, you are correct in that SCOTUS did not stick to the original intent of the Framers of the 14th and went a la carte.

They're still going a la carte, aren't they? They allow some infringements on the first amendment (by the states) but then rule against others. Slander and libel, for example, are illegal by state laws. But plenty of other state laws are shot down by the SCOTUS.

One more question since we're on the subject. Do you think the current interpretation of the 14th amendment went along with the intent of the framers of the constitution? Didn't James Madison propose an incorporation clause with his original Bill of Rights and it was purposely excluded at the time?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

They're still going a la carte, aren't they?

Correct, selective incorporation, a la Heller.

they allow some infringements on the first amendment (by the states) but then rule against others.

The standard of review has nothing to do with incorporation, don't confuse the two.

Do you think the current interpretation of the 14th amendment went along with the intent of the framers of the constitution?

No, mostly. While some of the amendments to the BoR were thought to apply to the states (e.g. the Second), most of the federal BoR was not thought to apply to the states.

The Framers of the 14th referenced this in the Congressional Record and it was explicit that the Framers meant to change that in order to combat Southern deprivations.

 

[rambone]

Not true. First, not an ad hom.

Right. You would have to accuse me of living in my mother's basement and hating America first. You are "MISTER AD HOMINEM." Good grief.

It is valid to seek his suggestion, knowing full well he has none, and point out his incessent hypocrisy. Second, stripping away his hyperbole and misleading statements, I do not disagree in principle with much of what he says. His presentation borders on lies at times. Third, his holier-than-thou attitude is difficult to stomach, especially when he is unable to practice what he preaches. And finally his hypocrisy knows no bounds.

What do I preach? You were supposed to give me specific examples and prove I was a hypocrite. Until then, this conversation is over.

I call a truce. Lets stick with the issues or not address each other at all. For everyone's sake.

 

[yotewacker]

Almost any signal transmitted over an the airwaves is not private and can be intercepted.

 

[rjstew317]

Almost any signal transmitted over an the airwaves is not private and can be intercepted.

that's why I use carrier pigeons

 

[msd]

I might of jumped posts here and missed something.
If I did someone please correct me.

But what's the difference between a cop looking at your txt msgs and the NSA monitoring every cell ph call in the world?

Either/or it is an infringement on your rights, without a search warrant. But the world has changed with the invention of the computer, cell ph, and internet. Plus terrorist attacks have heightened this change.

From what I know, (which is just enough to be dangerous) is every ph call you make is monitored by NSA and analyzed using key words analyzation.
The internet is monitored, maybe even this website.

For all we know txt msgs are already being analyzed by the gov't.

Only thing left is a law passed allowing txt msgs from possible or known criminals to be passed along to the proper law enforcement agency

 

[steveh_131]

Correct, selective incorporation, a la Heller.

The standard of review has nothing to do with incorporation, don't confuse the two.

Ok, I think I see your point here. They are two separate issues.

No, mostly. While some of the amendments to the BoR were thought to apply to the states (e.g. the Second), most of the federal BoR was not thought to apply to the states.

The Framers of the 14th referenced this in the Congressional Record and it was explicit that the Framers meant to change that in order to combat Southern deprivations.

Do you have any sources showing this Congressional Record? I'd be interested in reading it. The wording of it is so vague and confusing that I can't really figure out what their true intent was.

That said, Ron Paul seems to side with the intent of the original framers of the constitution as opposed to the framers of the 14th amendment (what was it, 70 years later?)

You consider this to essentially be "spitting" on the constitution? I'm leaning towards disagreeing with Ron Paul on this issue, but I don't see it as a major issue for me. After all, don't most state constitutions include a similar bill of rights?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Do you have any sources showing this Congressional Record?

Sure, the best researcher into the Framers of the 14th, IMHO, has been Stephen Halbrook. I would read his two works:

That Every Man Be Armed:

Stephen P. Halbrook - Books - That Every Man Be Armed

Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms.

Stephen P. Halbrook - Books - Freedman, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1966-1876

There are many other excellent law review articles on the intent of the Framers and it is quite clear that the Supreme Court's limiting of the Fourteenth via due process and selective incorporation is ahistorical and another sad legacy of slavery.

That said, Ron Paul seems to side with the intent of the original framers of the constitution as opposed to the framers of the 14th amendment (what was it, 70 years later?)

If you run about and say that government must adhere to the Constitution, then is it not a tad silly to pretend that parts of the Constitution do not exist? Ron Paul can side with whomever he desires, but if he wants to be President, then he should not ignore the 14th Amendment. I know the Lost Causers hate it, but the Civil War is over.

 

[Rob377]

Another book to add to the list for the 14th Amendment

Amazon.com: No State Shall Abridge: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights (9780822310358): Michael Kent Curtis: Books

 

[steveh_131]

If you run about and say that government must adhere to the Constitution, then is it not a tad silly to pretend that parts of the Constitution do not exist? Ron Paul can side with whomever he desires, but if he wants to be President, then he should not ignore the 14th Amendment. I know the Lost Causers hate it, but the Civil War is over.

Do you know that he is pretending it doesn't exist? Or does he simply disagree with this interpretation of it? It's not exactly cut and dry. The Slaughter-House cases came around only 5 years after the amendment was added, and even that court was split on how they interpreted it.

If he's advocating that a court should pretend the amendment doesn't exist, then I'll agree with you that it's a problem.

I need to read up on the sources you provided, but in the context of slavery and the civil war I can see why people would interpret the amendment differently than it is currently being interpreted.

 

[rambone]

But what's the difference between a cop looking at your txt msgs and the NSA monitoring every cell ph call in the world?

Either/or it is an infringement on your rights, without a search warrant.

Definitely an infringement.

If you run about and say that government must adhere to the Constitution, then is it not a tad silly to pretend that parts of the Constitution do not exist? Ron Paul can side with whomever he desires, but if he wants to be President, then he should not ignore the 14th Amendment. I know the Lost Causers hate it, but the Civil War is over.

Is it possible that Ron Paul acknowledges the 14th but interprets it differently? What are these vague "privileges or immunities of the United States"? Maybe he thinks it was written to prevent states from ever again subjugating a race or a class of people. Its vague enough to be interpreted different ways by people who hold equal respect for the constitution.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I need to read up on the sources you provided, but in the context of slavery and the civil war I can see why people would interpret the amendment differently than it is currently being interpreted.

The Fourteenth Amendment was passed because of the failure of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Southern states were running rampant over the rights of the freedmen (however, one of the first federal lawsuits under CRA 1866 was in Indiana, denial of entry into a hotel). The Framers intent was to provide federal assurance of their rights in the BoR to give Blacks weapons against the Southern states and the nightriders.

It's not exactly cut and dry.

It is very cut and dry but those with an agenda do not wish it to be.

Today the Fourteenth Amendment is stood on its head especially in the corners of Paulian Wookieville to mean that it is a stalking horse for federal power grabs (as if the mutation of the commerce clause does not matter). It is a the argument of the Lost Causers and it is repugnant to all free men.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What are these vague "privileges or immunities of the United States"?

The Framers, e.g. Bingham, were very clear, all provisions of the Bill of Rights.

Taney's Ghosts did not want the Bill of Rights applied to the States, especially the Southern states. The Court turned its back on African-Americans and our nation received another 100 years of suffering for it.