SCOTUS: Police can read your text messages without warrant

[Rob377]

Definitely an infringement.


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.

No, it's really not that vague at all.

See Corfield. v Coryell and Dredd Scott v. Sanford for an explanation of what privilege and immunities means.

That clause was among other things, a Constitutional smackdown of the Dredd Scott decision, which is why Bingham chose those words specifically. Taney repeatedly listed all the "privileges and immunities" that blacks couldn't have:

" For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police [p417] regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State."

Scott v. Sandford

Everyone knew what privileges and immunities meant at the time. Just because people have become more ignorant doesn't mean we get to completely ignore an entire section of the Constitution.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Definitely an infringement.


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.

The problem is that it is not Paul's place to interpret it - it is to follow the law as interpreted by the sole Constitutional branch empowered to do so - the courts. At a personal level, he is certainly free to say "this is what I wish it meant". As someone who wants to be President, his constitutional role is to play the game as dealt. He can call for new cards (press for changes to the law, press for a different interpretation) within the confines of the game. Ignoring reality and pressing his own agenda, however correct it may be, is total fail.

For every side on an issue there are 30 other sides. We should hold politicians to the standard of acting within the law. We should hold ourselves to the standard of changing the laws we don't like.

 

[steveh_131]

The problem is that it is not Paul's place to interpret it - it is to follow the law as interpreted by the sole Constitutional branch empowered to do so - the courts. At a personal level, he is certainly free to say "this is what I wish it meant". As someone who wants to be President, his constitutional role is to play the game as dealt. He can call for new cards (press for changes to the law, press for a different interpretation) within the confines of the game. Ignoring reality and pressing his own agenda, however correct it may be, is total fail.

The only suggestion I've heard him make on the matter is that the court (the "branch empowered to do so") should have interpreted it differently.

I've never read or heard him say anything suggesting that as president he believes he should be allowed to circumvent the constitution or the courts. If he has, please cite it because I would consider it to be extremely relevant.

 

[steveh_131]

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

What is his agenda?

 

[rambone]

The problem is that it is not Paul's place to interpret it - it is to follow the law as interpreted by the sole Constitutional branch empowered to do so - the courts. At a personal level, he is certainly free to say "this is what I wish it meant". As someone who wants to be President, his constitutional role is to play the game as dealt. He can call for new cards (press for changes to the law, press for a different interpretation) within the confines of the game. Ignoring reality and pressing his own agenda, however correct it may be, is total fail.

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of internment camps for American citizens, mandatory sterilization of unfit/disabled persons, forcing citizens into mandatory service to the state, and numerous other tyrannical laws.

If you want a president who will side with freedom and still 'play the game' then you need candidates who can form & express their own interpretations and give the people a chance to weigh these factors on the candidate as a whole. If they remain silent, then we never know what they will do. Frankly, I think this discussion is over the heads of some of the other candidates.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What is his agenda?

Who? Paul? No clue.

 

[steveh_131]

Who? Paul? No clue.

Oh. Ok. I thought you had one in mind.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of internment camps for American citizens, mandatory sterilization of unfit/disabled persons, forcing citizens into mandatory service to the state, and numerous other tyrannical laws.

If you want a president who will side with freedom and still 'play the game' then you need candidates who can form & express their own interpretations and give the people a chance to weigh these factors on the candidate as a whole. If they remain silent, then we never know what they will do. Frankly, I think this discussion is over the heads of some of the other candidates.

Presidents are implementors, not kings. I'm not saying he shouldn't have opinions and drive the debate for change. But the President doesn't make the law. Congress does. He gets to interpret the law up until the point that SCOTUS rules. Then he can move to change it, or follow it.

 

[rambone]

Presidents are implementors, not kings. I'm not saying he shouldn't have opinions and drive the debate for change. But the President doesn't make the law. Congress does. He gets to interpret the law up until the point that SCOTUS rules. Then he can move to change it, or follow it.

Ron Paul hasn't done anything but offer an opinion. Just like you say, he's driving a debate. Nothing more. The end.

 

[Kagnew]

I'll let you in on a little secret. All forms of electronic communication everywhere in the world have been subject to monitoring for a long, long time. The opinions of the Supreme Court never had, and will never have, any bearing, one way of the other.

(Of course, I just got this information second-hand from a guy who knows a guy who ...)

 

[Kagnew]

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of internment camps for American citizens, mandatory sterilization of unfit/disabled persons, forcing citizens into mandatory service to the state, and numerous other [tyrannical] laws.

So, where's the problem?

 

[Kagnew]

... and the NSA monitoring every cell ph call in the world?

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

Statement 1 is a vicious rumor.

As to statement 2, I'd be interested in knowing which Constitutional "right" is being violated? We (supposedly) have a right to privacy in our own homes, but any form of electronic transmission is essentially the same thing as speaking in public, is it not? Do we have a "right" to restrict who can hear what we say?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Ron Paul hasn't done anything but offer an opinion. Just like you say, he's driving a debate. Nothing more. The end.

You and I offer opinions. Presidents change the world with a glance. Words matter from someone that seeks the highest office in America.

 

[ViperJock]

If the cops read my messages they are gonna get a honeydo/grocery list and a bunch of "thats what she said." Hey, if they get a kick out of that, so be it.

Legally speaking though, would a letter in your pocket be searchable without a warrant? Seems like that would be similar? Anyone know the answer to that?

 

[Prometheus]

If the cops read my messages they are gonna get a honeydo/grocery list and a bunch of "thats what she said." Hey, if they get a kick out of that, so be it.

Legally speaking though, would a letter in your pocket be searchable without a warrant? Seems like that would be similar? Anyone know the answer to that?

Constitutionally? No.

Legally? Probably.

To use a term most people are familiar with today, every Citizen was meant to have a sort of diplomatic immunity.

Everything a person had and did and said was THEIRS and not subject to the whims of government but under very strict and controlled circumstances requiring any agent of the government to jump thru many hoops before being able to violate the Rights, or immunities if you will, of that person.