What I hear people saying is that the 4th Amendment is no longer relevant?

[kentuck]

There is no privacy anymore.

Songwriters and musicians complain that people are stealing their works and their ideas. They fought for laws to protect their copyrights.

Congress has passed a HIPAA rule to protect the privacy of health information.

"The Privacy Rule

The HIPAA Privacy Rule establishes national standards to protect individuals’ medical records and other personal health information and applies to health plans, health care clearinghouses, and those health care providers that conduct certain health care transactions electronically. The Rule requires appropriate safeguards to protect the privacy of personal health information, and sets limits and conditions on the uses and disclosures that may be made of such information without patient authorization. The Rule also gives patients rights over their health information, including rights to examine and obtain a copy of their health records, and to request corrections.

The Privacy Rule is located at 45 CFR Part 160 and Subparts A and E of Part 164.

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/administrative/privacyrule/index.html

So, the 4th Amendment is not totally dead.

The point is that people should not surrender their privacy so easily. Just because of technology that makes it very difficult to maintain, that is no reason to give up your constitutional right to privacy.

Congress can make laws that pertain and relate to us all, including the US Government. Your personal information is yours. You can agree to give away as much as you want over the Internet, Facebook for example, but that does not give the owners of Internet sites the right to take more of your privacy than you wish to give them. They should be unable to sell your personal information for profit without your permission. They have the right to advertise with pop-up ads, etc, so long as you visit their sites. They have certain rights as owners of property. But they have no right to your personal property unless you agree to give it to them.

Just because technology gives us airbags in our cars does not mean we stop wearing seatbelts.

It is not a small problem with easy solutions. But that is why we have a government - to protect our privacy and constitutional rights- not to run roughshod over them.

We all have just as much right to privacy today as we did when the Constitution was written. We only think we don't. We have surrendered much of our 4th Amendment. It is time to take it back. The laws are on the book. They only need to be enforced.

Modern technology has not made the 4th Amendment obsolete. It has only made it more difficult to keep. I think we should fight to keep it. Don't surrender.

[Bay Boy]

1. I had to stop after the 2nd question...

..." Women should have to promise to obey their husbands when they get married."

I strongly agreed and my wife socked me in the arm so hard I fell off my chair.

[kentuck]

2. ???

Wrong thread?

[HardTimes99]

9. You are so diplomatic :) - nt

[Bay Boy]

16. Apparently so... oops! n/t

[Skidmore]

3. That is the whole point.

You don like how a law is carried out or is written, take it to Congress and demand responsible legislation. Make certain you pay attention to how it is written. A Congress run by Republicans has taught the people that it is not essential to a good government, setting the expectation bar very low. As a result, they tend to be dismissed outright as part of the equation for solutions either by way of legislating or oversight. I look forward to the day when people actually start demanding reasonable governance from them and quit ceding that territory to the radical right. You can start by having them take back their constitutionally assigned war powers.

[kentuck]

4. But, it has been a problem...

...that Democrats continue Republican policies, rather than throwing them out the door, when the people vote them into power.

[Skidmore]

5. Tell me how many bills have been fillibustered or otherwise

obstructed by this Teabagger House and McConnell's Senate? The devil is in the details. How many bills have made it through in spite of that do nothing party? How many judicial and other appointments have not been made? Why not hammer on the Rs who have something to gain from inaction and throw constructive feedback and support to Ds to get them acrosz the line. Handwringing and kneecapping are not going toget you anywhere but where you already find yourself.

[kentuck]

6. So why vote for Democrats??

Republicans don't seem to have that problem when they are in power?

Democrats had several opportunities to change the filibuster rule but out of fear that they might not someday be in the majority, they balked every time.

[Skidmore]

8. You can vote for Rs if you want because

you seem willing to give them a pass for the cesspool of their creation. I won't because Rs do not have my interests as a female at heart. I wll not give them a pass by labelling Dems as Rs.

[HardTimes99]

11. Today's Republicans are fascists. Why anyone with a shred of empathy would vote

for any Republican is beyond me.

That's why I'm bewildered that President Obama keeps naming them (Hagel, Comey, et. al.) to his administration.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. Except you supported Hagel for Defense. Anti choice, anti gay Iraq War Yes voter

who was convinced of WMDs and 'yellowcake' and who built that cesspool you speak of while voting against women's rights and while calling gay people names.
So maybe you meant 'I won't give them a pass except when I support the for promotion and extensive power'.

[Skidmore]

18. Wow. I am a member of the Senate. Who knew?

I must have been absent on the day his appointment was approved.

I am a Democrat and I will vote accordingly. End of subject. There is nothing the Republicans or Teabaggers have to offer me. Nothing that Rand Paul has in his bag of tricks. Anyone seeking votes for LaRouche candidates will not get a glance from me. Nader wore out his welcome with me when he took Republican money to play their game. At a state and local level, I will support the Democratic candidate where party must be designated and the person who best reflects what I believe to be good policy for the area in which I live.

In the meantime, I keep in touch with my legislators and give them my opinions and encourage them to vote for policies that I support. I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater because I realize the crafting of legislation is a much more nuanced issue than most prefer to believe it is.

[Bluenorthwest]

20. Cute repsonse but no one said you voted for Hagel, you supported him, which you

did. He's a Republican, and he's anti choice and you boosted him and his promotion on DU.
This ranting about radicals like LaRouche is very out of right field as is the Paul talk. These are racist homophobes to the right of the Republicans. I would expect any sane person to utterly and totally reject such politicians at once. This is not about your radical right wing table jockeys and libertarian road shows.
Hagel had your support in many DU posts, and that is the basis of our discussions here.
I don't support Republicans for office, you do sometimes. I opposed Hagel. You defended him, supported him.
Skidmore, I was born into the Democratic Party. No one in my family throws out babies with bathwater, nor do we support Republicans for offices, and your focus on folks like LaRouche makes me wonder where you live and what sort of world it is there. They are the crazies in front the supermarket. And yet they seem to have much of your focus. They elect no one. But you mention them, for some reason, when speaking to a Democrat. Do you think invoking those radical right winger's names absolves you of your support for other Republicans? I don't.
It is hypocrisy to be a bipartisan centrist in practice and in public while among Democrats hurling invective at the very Party whose members you see as the best choice for Defense.
I hate them all. So when folks who did some of them, like Hagel, try to posture that they oppose Republicans I will point that out.

[Skidmore]

22. These crazies in the front of the supermarket are

exactly what is out there right now along with the Rs pushing for more inroads and control.

[Bluenorthwest]

24. The right has always been with us. How is that news to you? New to the DNC?

Born yesterday? Yep, Republicans are right wingers, you mention Paul all the time, he IS a Republican, he is not 'along with them' he is one. Rand Paul is a member of the Chuck Hagle Party, the James Comey Party, the Party whose members you do at times support for appointments. Would you support Rand Paul for an appointment? I sure as fuck wouldn't.
You did not answer any of my questions, you continued to preach simplistic and patronizing sermons at me instead.
You supported anti choice Chuck to be in charge of military women. You did that. And I'd not do that in a million years. He's a Republican, and I reject them all.

[Fumesucker]

7. The Democrats had a chance to change the filibuster rule

They

Did

Nothing


How about that detail?

[think]

10. I'm still floored that Reid allowed that happen.

Well kind of.....

[Fumesucker]

12. At one time they had the courtesy to call it rain

One could at least maintain a fig leaf of deniability.

[sabrina 1]

14. That would be possible if we had a Congress that was responsive to the people. We do not.

Here is a perfect example of what happens when the people DO get involved to the point where Congress cannot ignore them.

When Henry Paulson ran into Congress waving his 3 page edict to Congress for approval of over 700 billion dollars to bail out the criminals who gambled away this country's economy, the people DID sit up and pay attention. Congress members could not keep up with the calls, letters and emails they were getting demanding they refuse to bail them out.

Congress responded by voting against King Henry. For a few days, the people cheered, 'people power'! It works!

But not for long. Soon after that Congress was asked to vote again, and this time King Henry got the vote he wanted and took off with our money.

The people were in shock. What happened? Rumors began to spread that Congress had been threatened. Those rumors were later confirmed by a few members of Congress. Members changed their votes after being threatened by King Henry that if he did not get what he wanted there would be Martial Law in the country, we later learned.

That was a near win for the people, but most of the time it doens't even get that close for them. Most of the time, things are done in secret, such as the latest outrage, the Free Trade Agreement where even members of Congress are not allowed to see what is going on.

It's way past time to tell the people to pressure their Representatives. We are beyond the point where that will work. So what next? We have to move past thinking that something that should work will work and stop wasting time on what we have already tried.

We are at a point where we need better advice than 'let Congress know what you think'. Congress doesn't care what we think.

[kentuck]

15. I would agree that Congress needs to exert more power...

Especially over the Executive branch that has decided it will unilaterally decide when to go to war and when to make trade treaties and when to ship jobs overseas...etc.

[Skidmore]

19. Congress needs to do its job. The one constitutionally assigned it and which includes more

than oversight. The Executive has been given the war power by Congress which handed their constitutionally assigned power over to the executive after 9/11 via the AUFM, washed their hands of assuming responsibility, and walked away. It is a joint resolution which passed with overwhelming majorities in both houses. The AUFM has not been repealed or modified and still stands. Because Bush and Cheney were successful in conflating the Iraq War with 9/11, they were able to create a dynamic in which all acts of terrorism can be interpreted as being related to 9/11 and therefore subject to war status.

Let's get clear what we mean when we are talking about responsibility for the decisions related to governance.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. My Senator Wyden voted against the Patriot Act extension in 2006 while Obama voted

Yes and wanted to make sure Bush and Cheney retained powers extraordinary.

My Senators are Democrats, one voted No in 2006, the other was elected in 2008, my Rep is Peter Defazio, look up his record.
The only person in DC who got my vote who is supporting this bullshit is Obama. He and his administration have not been informing our Congress members properly, they lie and they evade. DU's centrists are very angry at Weyden for seeking to fill his duty, his sworn duty.
Why would I hassle Jeff and Ron and Peter when they all agree with me? The one in the wrong is Obama, he was wrong in the Senate and he is still wrong. Maybe he will 'evolve' on this as well, he was a stark raving anti gay preacher for years, then he needed money and 'evolved' for pay. It is what it is.

[Egalitarian Thug]

13. And they're just fine with that.

Why do you hate America?

[TheMadMonk]

21. Airbags in US cars are child killers, BECAUSE people refused to wear seatbelts.

In parts of the world where seatbelts are mandatory, airbag charges are scaled to stop a face. In the US they have to stop the entire body of a typically overweight adult.

Interesting how you've gone from that sort of bloody minded "independence", to handing over everything. And all it took was Facebook.