Even the smallest surrender of 4th Amendment rights is a surrender of them all.

[kentuck]

That is why we have a duty and obligation to question even the hint of government usurping their power. As liberals, we should not even hint at supporting government in their attempt to secretly hide information or to hide information from its citizens. Our duty is to protect our Constitution, not to protect fearful and paranoid citizens from a small bunch of terrorists in the Middle East.

We do not surrender our right to defend ourselves. We only say that we do not believe that the government should eavesdrop on even one American citizen unless they are talking directly to someone in the Middle East. Even then, they should take all precautions to have the required warrants and oversight of our elected representatives. As liberals, we should settle for nothing less.

[Logical]

1. Too many people do not understand this. Small changes lead to big issues later. I am 100%....

against DUI checkpoints. It is stopping me with no reasonable suspicion. But people are in the "if you have nothing to hide" mode and do not see the big picture.

[Th1onein]

50. I agree with you and the original post.

[msanthrope]

2. You should argue that the next time you go through security at an airport. An absolutist

stance on amendments tends to be the hallmark of the RKBA group--not exactly enlightening.

[kentuck]

3. That is one reason I do not fly.

I do not play their game.

[msanthrope]

4. Who the 'their' in that sentence? nt

[kentuck]

5. "Their" game is the Homeland Security and the PTB.

That began with George W Bush and has continued under Barack Obama. We have had worse enemies than the ones we are now shitting our pants over.

[msanthrope]

11. Dude--long before GWB there were airport checkpoints. nt

[kentuck]

14. I think the issue might be in how we define "airport checkpoints"?

There were safety checkpoints in place but not indiscriminate, individual checkpoints.

[msanthrope]

28. Yes there were. You are talking to someone who was searched quite thoroughly long before 9/11. nt

[kentuck]

30. I was never searched.

And I never felt that my rights were being imposed upon?

[msanthrope]

31. I was searched, and never felt my rights being imposed upon. Your fear of flying can

be overcome.

[Sheepshank]

37. Airport luggage has been subject to random search ever since I can remember

as has been showing ID, providing passports, full name, and previously even ss#s. To pretend it's all a recent invention to undermind any Constitutional Amendment is pretty much a big fat whopping lie.

[blackspade]

46. No, not really

Pre 9/11 airport security was much different.
Anyone could go onto a concourse without an ID.
You just had to go through a metal detector and have your bags x-rayed.
If you set off the metal detector, they wanded you and you explained (ex: steel toed boots) and they sent you on your way.
If there was a question about something in your bag, they might look at it as well.
I carried all kinds of stuff onto planes including a short sword (admittedly in a taped up box) and bottles of beer.
The only time you showed ID was at the gate to verify your ticket.
It was all low key and simple.
I never took off my shoes or even a jacket.

Post 9/11, the government lost its mind.
But safety is not their goal, it is the perception of safety.

These days I wonder if I should just wear speedos......

[sabrina 1]

18. Or don't fly. See, there are always choices, and the 'no fly' campaign apparently

worked, the 'oh so needed for our security naked scanners' have been quietly removed from major airports following the enormous controversy over the egregious invasion of Constitutional rights and the many lawsuits filed by citizens and Civil Rights Organizations.

To think, we are now either in imminent danger of a terror attack, or it was all a sham from the beginning. Take your pick.

Now, we have to start getting them removed from ball parks etc, something we were told 'will never happen'.

I flew for the first time this year since those abominable machines and 'pat downs' were installed with the claim we were in dire danger without them. And there were no pat downs, no naked scanners. And we made it across the country safely, on two separate planes.

Liberals are always right. Too bad we have to fight so hard to stop the authoritarians from getting their money making rackets passed through Congress before we win.

[Maedhros]

25. What's disheartening about your post

is that the "naked scanners" were only removed because the airlines' revenues were threatened, not because of our rights.

And that's about all one needs to know about how our "democracy" works.

[blackspade]

47. They are still in many airports

Louisville, KY for sure.

[sabrina 1]

49. Really? They were supposed to have been removed from ALL airports by June 1.

According to this CNN report, Congress had required software to protect the privacy of passengers but Rapiscan could not meet the requirements and decided instead to remove them all.

TSA removes body scanners criticized as too revealing

"I think from the privacy perspective, that (the elimination of backscatter machines) has to be considered a victory," said Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.


The agency had developed protocols to assure that screeners who saw imagery of passengers never saw the passengers themselves.

But Congress voted to require all body scanners to have privacy-protecting software, and the TSA announced in February it was phasing out backscatter systems because they could not meet the new standard.

The last backscatter machines were removed about two weeks ago, a TSA spokesman said. All 250 units were removed at Rapiscan's expense, the agency said.

The article is from May of this year. Maybe someone needs to start calling airports that still have them to find out why they are still there, especially if they have not met the requirements set by Congress.

[blackspade]

51. Thanks for the info

All I know is that I had to do the 'wicker man' stance in this thing.
Frankly the things creep the shit out of me.

[indepat]

6. In the case of constitutional rights, just as with rape, does not the slightest penetration

constitute commission of the unconstitutional act/violent crime?

[msanthrope]

10. Um, no. Telling you that you can't get a parade permit for your protest at 3am is not an

impermissible infringement of your 1st amendment rights, akin to rape.

Holy shit. Really?

[kentuck]

12. Even if one action might interfere with the rights of others not to be disturbed at 3 am?

Seems to me to be apples and oranges?

[msanthrope]

13. I have no idea what you are saying. nt

[kentuck]

16. Of course you don't.

A parade at 3 am might be considered "disturbing the peace"? You don't have that right under the First Amendment because it may interfere with the rights of someone else. A rape is not analogous.

[msanthrope]

23. Not being allowed to have a parade at 3 am is a time/place/manner restriction on the 1st.

This restriction is permissible not because of the rights of others to be free of "disturbing the peace" but from an asserted governmental interest, a content-neutral application, a narrow tailoring of the regulation, and finally, alternate ample means of communication. Thus, your 1st amendment rights in this situation are not depredated by the other citizens (which would possibly constitute an impermissible heckler's veto) but on the strictly-tailored needs of government.

It's still not akin to rape.

[COLGATE4]

26. It's called intentionally being obtuse. nt

[WillyT]

7. EXACTLY !!! - K & R !!!

[giftedgirl77]

8. That sounds awfully similar to the gun nuts

logic with the 2d. Their biggest argument is if we let the government outlaw certain guns now or place requirements on purchases, whats to stop a registry & confiscation & whatever else they can dream up.

The 4th has already been changed & challanged on numerous issues that your argument of A"we can't give them an inch" is naive. No I'm not even talking NSA at this point. We can discuss plain view doctrine or implied consent if you wish. Both of which impact the 4th Amendment & have very strong legal standing.

[JDPriestly]

24. Infringements on our basic rights have to be reasonable.

The indiscriminate collection of metadata and the analysis of the metadata is not reasonable.

It would be reasonable to collect specific metadata on a specific person suspected of being a terrorist and perhaps on the close associates of that person.

Our rights are not absolute, but the government may not limit them in ways that are so all encompassing as to be unreasonable. That is what they are doing with this surveillance program apparently.

[kentuck]

34. I think the word "reasonable" is within our Constitution?

In other words, common sense.

[JDPriestly]

52. Actually, it isn't written in the Constitution . . . .

[giftedgirl77]

48. Keyword is apparently.

I'm not going to play the rah rah game of there is no way the gov would do something of that nature. However, knowing the laws & having the understanding that I do of the federal law & intel law when it comes to gathering Intel on US persons I'm damn sure not jumping on the OMG bandwagon.

[forestpath]

9. K&R

[Recursion]

15. Is that true for the 2nd also?

The parallel is certainly hard to deny

[kentuck]

19. Not if it interferes with the rights of others...

.. to walk the streets in safety without fear of being shot. I don't think it is the same. You have the right to keep and bear arms so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others to be secure and free from intimidation in their homes and surrounding. Your argument is exactly the opposite. It is more in line with those that say the government has all these rights to impose upon citizens.

[Recursion]

20. So you don't mind trading liberty for safety

If guns are involved?

[kentuck]

21. In this instance, safety is not the same as blanket security.

People want to know that their plane is safe to fly. That does not mean they want to be strip-searched for bombs or exploding shoes. They do not want to be photographed with an X-ray machine. They know when the government has over-stepped its bounds. We do not surrender common sense.

[Recursion]

35. But all of those things make the planes safer to fly

Neither gun control nor airport security are foolproof, but either one makes it somewhat harder to kill people. And both are infringements on liberty in the name of security.

[Sheepshank]

39. Stop being so freaking reasonable.....

can't you tell its infringing on a perfectly obtuse, strawman rant?

[NutmegYankee]

29. Where do you draw a limit?

A person may feel insecure in their home because a neighbor owns firearms. Assuming no threatening behavior etc, would the neighbor have to get rid of them?

[kentuck]

32. That is the purpose of courts in our system of government.

You have the right to have your case heard in a court of law.

[NutmegYankee]

56. That obviously worked out swell for the 4th amendment...

[dipsydoodle]

17. K&R

.

[tabasco]

22. Yeah, police should not have been allowed to search Jeffrey Dahmer's home

Good point.

[Warren DeMontague]

40. unless I'm mistaken, they probably had a warrant for that.

But you're absolutely right. The NSA should shred the Constitution to help the DEA monitor and arrest drug users because, uh, Dahmer.

[NuclearDem]

44. Dahmer explicitly invited them in.

[Cryptoad]

27. I believe ,,,,,

everybody has the Right to live in a world without any nuclear weapons. But I realize those days are gone and will never return..... So is the non-digital age. You will never have any privacy anymore.!

[kentuck]

33. Nobody would suggest that you could snap your fingers and change the world.

But that does not mean that you surrender either.

[MagickMuffin]

36. Where was everyone's concerns when this FIRST occurred under the Drug War Paranoia?

Our 4th Amendment rights were first violated because of the Drug War. Anyone could have their person, house, or car searched under the guise that they might have illegal drugs.

When this first started occurring not much outrage over our 4th Amendments rights being denied and taken away from us.

Where was everyone during that time?

Why weren't they concerned or Why didn't they care back then?

Where was everyone's duty to protect the Constitution?

All the presidents starting with Nixon and continuing through today, there still isn't much concern about the tactics used by LE's illegal use of suppressing everyone's 4th Amendment rights. I certainly remember some of us at the time were complaining about it, yet the response was if you don't have anything to hide then what difference does it make.

People have lost their lives and property because of this illegal use of denying the 4th Amendment to the citizens of the USA.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. You don't want us to be SAFE, do you. Why do you hate freedom?

[uponit7771]

41. Surrender the 15th then the 4th is mute

[blackspade]

42. +1000

[daleanime]

43. Amen....

[Life Long Dem]

45. Smallest?

There is no smallest. Either it's a violation of 4th amendment rights or there is no violation of 4th amendment rights. No 'almost' to a violation. Almost only counts in horseshoes.

[pnwmom]

53. It's not a simple matter of black and white.

For example, it prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Everything hinges on the meaning of unreasonable.

[1-Old-Man]

54. K&R, something I find myself doing often with your posts.

Nothing less, I agree.

[Progressive dog]

55. The 4th Amendment cannot cover modes of communication

that were not dreamed of when it was written. The protections are not absolute. Even Habeas Corpus can be suspended, this is in the body of the Constitution, not an amendment.

John Locke, Second Treatise on Government wrote;

IF man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? Why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property. (2nd Tr., §123)