Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Heyzeus
climber
Hollywood,Ca
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2013 - 11:44pm PT
|
A contract that violates constitutional rights is not legal and not binding.
Correct, you can't sign your rights away.
If I'm a landlord renting an apartment in a rent-controlled city, I can put some jive in the lease that the tenant signs agreeing to waive rent-control laws, but it would never be upheld by a judge.
Good luck with that though. Also true.
|
|
froodish
Social climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2013 - 02:32am PT
|
Judge Leon:
Indeed, the question in this case can more properly be styled as follows: when do present-day circumstances—the evolutions in the Government's surveillance capabilities, citizens' phone habits, and the relationship between the NSA and telecom companies—become so thoroughly unlike those considered by the Supreme Court 34 years ago that a precedent like Smith simply does not apply? The answer, unfortunately for the government, is now.
Score one for the good guys.
|
|
froodish
Social climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2013 - 02:36am PT
|
Anyone think of something that would be unconstitutional for the gov't to do that's constitutional for a corporation to do?
Sure, that's easy. Here's one: limit speech. CMac can legally limit what you say on this forum, the government on the other hand...
|
|
froodish
Social climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2013 - 02:59am PT
|
just couldn't stay away, eh Joe?
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2013 - 05:30pm PT
|
Again, any examples of a corporation being allowed to engage in an activity that the gov't is barred from on constitutional grounds?
John--you're missing some key concepts regarding constitutional law. Look up "state action doctrine."
Here's an obvious example off the top of my head--a corporation can promote a specific religion as much as it wants to, indeed that can be the sole purpose of the corporation. The example listed above cMac being able to censor this site how he sees fit also works.
You're welcome.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2013 - 11:34pm PT
|
You're the one that's paranoid Joe.
You're worried that some terrorists will bomb LA with you in it .......
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2013 - 07:22pm PT
|
|
|
command error
Trad climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2013 - 01:28pm PT
|
Ever wonder whats up with all those telemarketer calls
that never leave a message?
Its the FBI tricking us to pose for pictures.
I mean your cell rings and you naturally look
at the display to see who's calling and
then they secretly and silently snap your picture.
Black electrical tape over all lens.
|
|
paganmonkeyboy
climber
mars...it's near nevada...
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2013 - 08:07pm PT
|
tioga how does spying on every American play into that ? I don't see the connection...
edit Don't be fooled: the 1st world life is only possible while there're nuclear weapons guarding it and powerful technology protecting security of said weapons
Coward ;-)
double edit :
As an American - Am I more likely to be
a) killed by terrorists
b) have my house foreclosed on illegally
c) die due to lack of medical insurance
|
|
nah000
climber
canuckistan
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 1, 2014 - 03:29pm PT
|
tioga said: "the fact that you're the least likely to die from terrorist attack is exactly due to massive security efforts."
this connection would, at first glance, appear to make straightforward common sense.
but is there really any evidence to back this assertion?
let's do a quick run through just a couple of the u.s. govt's most significant post 9/11 "massive security efforts":
1. iraq war: does anyone seriously think at this point that a war against the gov't of a country that had no significant connections with terrorism and that has killed 4 400 american soldiers, wounded at minimum another 30 000, all while killing a consensus minimum 100 000 civilians is one of the reasons for the lack of domestic u.s. terrorism attacks?
and equally as important these post 9/11 mid-east wars have cost the u.s. people 3-6 trillion dollars.
that works out to $10-20 000 per every u.s. citizen or $20-40 000 per every taxpayer.
2. mass surveillance: you seriously think that spending $80 billion per year on your national and military intelligence programs is "exactly" one of the reasons why the u.s. has had very few post 9/11 terrorism strikes? even though when the u.s. political/military/intelligence communities are pressed to justify the erosion of freedoms and large amount of money spent on specifically nsa mass surveillance programs, they make exaggerated claims of "54 disrupted terrorist plots" that then have to be walked back down to "at most one plot that might have been disrupted"?
you seriously think that if these programs were successful the powers that be wouldn't be justifying them at every point possible by repeatedly letting us know how many terrorist plots they had stopped?
that $80 billion works out to roughly $500 per every year and per every single u.s. taxpayer.
i could carry on with explications regarding remotely operated robots that have a 1 in 50 record of killing verifiable high value targets, while having a minimum 1 in 10 record of killing a verifiable civilian or tsa programs that seize cupcakes and toenail clippers or etc.
suffice to say that while the u.s. has been generally free of post 9/11 domestic terrorist attacks and this has been in part due to a few of the security measures that were both already and subsequently put in place, the bulk of the massive security measures have contributed nothing to the lack of attacks.
moreso and arguably, the bulk of these massive security measures have directly contributed to more threat, and to more insecurity by showing the world that the u.s. does not have a gov't that practices what it politically preaches, at least in so far as its dealings with the rest of the world.
and even if one doesn't agree with the preceding idea of direct contribution it is completely undeniable that these massive security measures have indirectly made the u.s. populace more insecure.
this is because ultimately, the u.s. can't financially afford these massive security measures.
a house with guns, that can't afford food is more insecure than the inverse.
the u.s. has economically destabilized itself, in part, chasing a tail of fear that it will never catch.
the longer people keep repeating the delusion that this chase is what keeps them secure, the worse the hangover is going to be...
good luck.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!