FAA Threatens to close control towers due to spending cuts
- Thread starter PPC1052
- Start date
- Status
Who doesn't "adhere" to the Constitution? What are you talking about?
roncachamp
Final Approach
The US government.
No, I believe that you are mistaken: It does adhere to the Constitution. Of course, if you hold radical views and want to simply co-opt the Constitution for your purposes, then no non-radical argument will be persuasive to you.
If one is, for example, a left-wing social justice activist or a right-wing anarcho-capitalist then one is unlikely to be swayed by, for example, traditional notions of the Founders' intent. But no serious thinker, on either side of the philosophical spectrum, believes that the US government is in flagrant violation of the Constitution.
There are borderline cases, of course: Is an American citizen, living abroad, and engaged in active hostilities against the United States a valid military target? Thoughtful people disagree about this. I have not really considered the matter but am inclined to say 'yes'. But many intelligent people would disagree with me and I might well be wrong.
But a knee-jerk condemnation of the government that, despite its flaws, remains the gold standard for liberal democracy around the world is not reasonable.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Plenty of 4th amendment violations out there that they go back and say "nope it's all good, nothing to see here, move along." That doesn't mean they are adhering to the constitution.
That's not an argument, can you make a case on your behalf?
Also, are you talking about a borderline case, like the one I cite? I have already conceded that there is genuine disagreement on that issue, but you certainly can't believe that because there is good-faith disagreement on a borderline case that there is systematic Constitutional violation going on.
roncachamp
Final Approach
To believe that the federal government adheres to the US Constitution requires one to be ignorant of the Constitution.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
DHS, CBP, et al already say you have no 4th amendment rights.
How about the "we'll call someone a terrorist and ignore their 6th and 7th amendment rights" ?
Last edited:
Oh, so I'm ignorant of the Constitution? **** you. You don't know me, you don't know what I know and what I don't, nor where I've served, nor anything about me.
You do understand what it means to make an argument, right? It's not just insult. You have to make your case. True premises and valid reasoning. If you can, do so. Don't insult people. Unbelievable.
You have not answered my question. What are you talking about, specifically? Give an argument.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
CBP has repeatedly said that your 4th amendment rights do not exist if you are ever near the border. Not when you are crossing back into the country only that you need be near the border.
Under the Patriot Act, if you are deemed a terrorist - just being merely accused - you don't get your 6th, 7th, or 8th amendment rights. Not if you are found guilty, if you are merely accused.
You call that following the Constitution?
It is not CBP who said that, it's title 8 and title 19 USC that say what they can inspect. Given that this has been litigated to the supreme court and found to be constitutional, yes they are following the constitution.
roncachamp
Final Approach
If you believe that the federal government adheres to the US Constitution, yes.
I know what you wrote. Were you not being honest?
Of course.
Do you mean like, "**** you"? I said nothing like that.
Easy, and it's been done many times. In a nutshell, the federal government is limited to the specified powers in the Constitution. Whenever the government assumes powers not specified it is acting unconstitutionally. Examples include, but are certainly not limited to, Social Security, Medicare, the federal minimum wage, Obamacare, etc.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
AFAIAC just because the USSC said it is OK does not mean it is following the Constitution. It most certainly is not the way it was written. If the cosntitution says 2 +2 = 4 and the USSC says no it is 6 that is not following the constitution.
Well, I find myself in disagreement with a number of supreme court decisions, e.g. Kelso vs. New London, still as long as the court decides it one way, that's how the cookie crumbles.
The 4th amendment doesn't say 'the goverment shall not ever search the home or personal effects of the people'. It says 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,...'
The courts have decided that the goverments interest to secure the border against entry of uninspected aliens or untaxed coffee beans is a 'reasonable' cause to search your car. I strongly disagree with how CBP at times decides to implement these powers (e.g. by destroying peoples cars which imnho is not 'reasonable'), but the underlying search is undoubtedly constitutional.
roncachamp
Final Approach
I believe you mean Kelo v. City of New London. Where do you find the power to use eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner in the US Constitution?
As I said, I disagree with their conclusion that it did not violate the 'takings' clause, but until there is a different composition of the court and a new test case, that is the answer we will have to go with.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
True, but we are, thankfully, allowed to disagree with the Supreme Court.
Jim Logajan
En-Route
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,024
- Display Name
Display name:
.
The problem with using the Supreme Court for validating constitutionality is that they have allegedly reversed themselves over 150 times between 1940 and 1992. [1]
And over 200 times since 1810. Since they were operating in most of those cases with the exact same constitutional clauses and issuing rulings that contradicted earler ones, ipso facto they fail to be a reliable rational standard.
With that track record it seems only fitting that they should finally rule themselves right out of the business of interpreting the constitution. They seem to have managed this self-swallowing feat by rulings that hand the executive branch the right to determine (because of national security concerns, you see) the exclusive right to decide when government actions are constitutional.
[1] http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/html/GPO-CONAN-1992-13.htm
They only missed 1.3 million illegal aliens sneaking in last year alone..... The courts need to find border agents and their superiors in contempt of immigration laws that are on the books.
Last edited:
midlifeflyer
Touchdown! Greaser!
Don't take it personally, Tom. Roncachump's "thing" is insulting people. Far exceeds any contributions he makes to a discussion.
midlifeflyer
Touchdown! Greaser!
Interesting blurb from Flying magazine - apparently sequestration means that Congressional reps (and the VP) will be losing access to military planes for travel. If true, it might mean a deal will be reached soon.
roncachamp
Final Approach
I posted a simple, factual statement. I have no control over anyone that chooses to feel insulted by it.
- Status