Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Parts of the Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional

samzenpus posted more than 6 years ago | from the if-you-have-nothing-to-hide dept.

The Courts 414

BlueBlade writes "According to this CBS story, a federal judge ruled Wednesday that two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without a showing of probable cause."

cancel ×

414 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

And this took how long? (4, Insightful)

an.echte.trilingue (1063180) | more than 6 years ago | (#20766657)

Seriously, why did this take so long?

Re:And this took how long? (5, Funny)

Speedracer1870 (1041248) | more than 6 years ago | (#20766703)

It would be unpatriotic to vote down the patriot act. Seriously, it would have been a lot easier to defeat had it been named the communist act.

Re:And this took how long? (4, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#20766831)

The patriotic thing to do is to uphold the Constitution, the highest law of the land. You know, the document your forefathers fought and died to uphold. If the PATRIOT Act is in conflict with the Constitution, then it is unpatriotic, just like the Members of Congress who voted it in and the President who signed the bill.

Regarding Ron Paul... (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20766875)

Sure, he opposes the war, but how much do you really know about Ron Paul's views?
  • Opposes federal funding for stem cell research
  • Pro-tax cuts, nearly all of which go to the rich
  • Anti-U.N.
  • Favors cutting gas taxes (go figure)
  • Against corporate accountability
  • Glorifies Ronald Reagan
  • Supports corporate efforts to ship US jobs to China
  • Attacks gun control and D.C. self-rule
  • Anti-union
  • Opposes hate crime legislation
  • Supports "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
  • Opposes allowing same-sex partners to adopt
  • Voted to allow bigoted Alabama judge to post Ten Commandments in courtroom
  • Co-sponsored Constitutional amendment pushing coerced prayer in public schools
  • Opposes restoring the Pledge of Allegiance to the version without "Under God"
  • And so on and so forth.
Oh, and if you're genuinely right-wingnut or wacko libertarian and actually admire Ron Paul for all the above—then you're a fucking idiot anyway, and no amount of truth will help set you straight. This message is aimed more at fellow travelers who for some reason imagine Ron Paul to be their savior. He's not, you internet dweebs.

Re:Regarding Ron Paul... (3, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767037)

Most of those are pretty bad, and I don't agree with all of his ideology, but I'm a practical guy. The country has gotten out of whack with the PATRIOT Act and other laws designed to erode your liberty under the guise of 'fighting terrorism.' I'm also not sure if all of those things are true, but I've heard them all.

There are no terrorists. Al Qaeda is and has been working for the CIA and the NSA. And Ron Paul is the only guy on the roster who sees that and is willing to clear it up. Hillary and Barrack both voted for the PATRIOT Act and the war. So did Fred Thompson and Mit Romney. These are facts, not FUD, and I'm not trying to start a flamewar, so mod me down if you like mods, but metamods need to pay attention, too, because you aren't supposed to mod based on your political opinion.

Obama did NOT vote for the war. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20767397)

Hillary and Barrack both voted for the PATRIOT Act and the war.

Barack Obama did not vote for the war. Stop spreading misinformation.

Does he have a time machine? (5, Funny)

Grendel Drago (41496) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767805)

Given that Obama entered the Senate in 2005, he must have used a time machine to go back and vote for the war in 2002 and the Patriot Act in 2001. Since he didn't go a bit further back and shoot Hitler, he's objectively pro-Hitler. Well, he's just lost my vote.

Re:Regarding Ron Paul... (0, Offtopic)

thedogcow (694111) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767041)

Does anyone have actual proof (i.e. voting records) for this list. Some of this sounds a bit skeptical and describes Ron Paul as a neoconservative when really he is a Barry Goldwater conservative. Links please, otherwise this is tin foil hat material.

Re:Regarding Ron Paul... (0, Offtopic)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767051)

* Opposes federal funding for pretty much everything

* Pro-tax cuts, nearly all of which go to the rich...anti-inflationary money policy, nearly all of which benefits the poor

* Anti-U.N....and any other organization that subsumes state sovereign autonomy

* Favors cutting gas taxes as gas taxes are nearly exclusively a tax on the poor (much like cigarette taxes)

* Against corporate welfare

* Glorifies Ronald Reagan...nobody's perfect. :)

* Supports corporate efforts to ship US jobs to China, because jobs are a finite and static resource and employment is a zero-sum competition? They certainly aren't; ask any economist. This point is just plain stupid.

* Attacks gun control (so...?) and D.C. self-rule, which is a messy and complicated political football, complete with constitutional entanglements.

* Anti-union...does it bear mentioning that unions these days are pretty corrupt and generally are ineffective at bettering their members' circumstances?

* Opposes hate crime legislation, as a crime is a crime is a crime, by statute. I'm pretty sure if you kill someone, the thing they would care about is their being dead, not what was going through your head when you did it.

* Supports "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"; Ron Paul is not good on homosexual equality issues.

* Opposes allowing same-sex partners to adopt...again, this is Ron Paul legitimately being stupid.

* Voted to allow bigoted Alabama judge to post Ten Commandments in courtroom, as free expression is just one of those things we used to care about...

* Co-sponsored Constitutional amendment pushing coerced prayer in public schools...I'm sorry, this is the only one I hadn't heard. Citation, please?

* Opposes restoring the Pledge of Allegiance to the version without "Under God"...so?

* And so on and so forth. Yes, he is truly all that is opposed to what is right and true...LOL.

Re:Regarding Ron Paul... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20767177)

Supports corporate efforts to ship US jobs to China, because jobs are a finite and static resource and employment is a zero-sum competition? They certainly aren't; ask any economist. This point is just plain stupid.

Yeah, damn all them stupid people, they should all just shut up and go work in the factories.... oh wait.

The problem with your economists is that they have no clue what the hell the people who aren't smart enough to be inventors or pleasant enough to be service workers are supposed to be doing once we lose all of the unskilled labor jobs.

Re:Regarding Ron Paul... (0, Offtopic)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767339)

Yeah. It's so difficult to be pleasant; it must take specialized training. But seriously, if you want to blame someone for outsourcing jobs, blame those who set up the current international financial system which allows free flow of capital; that is what facilitates job market mobility. That happened back in the 1970's with the abolition of most capital controls, and I'm pretty sure that wasn't Ron Paul's fault.

Re:Regarding Ron Paul... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20767373)

The problem with your economists is that they have no clue what the hell the people who aren't smart enough to be inventors or pleasant enough to be service workers are supposed to be doing once we lose all of the unskilled labor jobs.
Serve me my damn lunch.

Re:Regarding Ron Paul... (4, Insightful)

apparently (756613) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767531)

Opposes hate crime legislation, as a crime is a crime is a crime, by statute. I'm pretty sure if you kill someone, the thing they would care about is their being dead, not what was going through your head when you did it.

The difference between a murder and a murder conducted as a hate crime is that in the latter, the murder has an additional purpose in that it's perpetrated to serve as a warning toward members of the attacked group. I.e.: A hate crime committed against a homosexual is supposed to serve as a warning to other homosexuals in the community. A hate crime committed toward an African American, is supposed to serve as a warning to other African Americans -- think of a lynching, where the body is left hanging for public display. Thus, there actually is a difference in murdering an individual, and also hoping that said murder will serve as a "Fags go home", or "Know your place nigger" warning statement. Not to throw a word around that is often used incorrectly, but it's a form of terrorism against those communities -- not only was the victim attacked, but the community was as well, hence the additional penalty of committing the crime. (That's using the definition of terrorism as an act that is supposed to instill fear and intimidation into a group of individuals)

Re:Regarding Ron Paul... (4, Insightful)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767703)

True. However, the courts already make a sharp distinction between expressive speech and expressive action; burning a cross on a lawn, for example, is intended to cause real harm of the sort you describe, and has no external speech value (unless it's in a Madonna music video...;)). The problem with hate crime legislation per se is that it serves to dissolve the distinction between prohibited acts and prohibited motivations; I don't have much problem with "Hate Crime Legislation" that has a discrete evidentiary burden for a criminalized act intended and normally understood to intimidate a community of persons. However, the difficulty of crafting such legislation finely enough to avoid the criminalization of attitudes and intents that are distasteful but not terroristic is such that I am skeptical any body of legislators (being human and thus subject to the passions and hysterias of the crowd) can successfully do so in all but the most obvious and clear-cut types of behaviors.

I personally think government should solemnly give up the notion it can make people better and concentrate on preventing people from harming each other with overt acts. The protection of communities, including disadvantaged ones, comes from them being assured that they are secure in their persons from harm, and that only comes from the Rule of Law being clear and acting to quash destructive behaviors and acts by applying that rule. Suppressing ideologies for their own sake is never very successful.

Re:Regarding Ron Paul... (2, Interesting)

shadow_slicer (607649) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767689)

I'm sorry, but I as with you until:

Voted to allow bigoted Alabama judge to post Ten Commandments in courtroom, as free expression is just one of those things we used to care about..
The issue in this case was not a small wall hanging obtained with personal funds. In this case it was a large monument obtained using several thousand dollars of state funds. It was moved in during the middle of the night without notifying anybody. I'm for free expression as much as the next person, and if Roy wanted to use his personal funds to procure a sign or something for his office that's fine, but using state funds to purchase a gigantic monument and placing it in the courthouse lobby of the AL state supreme court kind of crosses the line a bit, no?
And, although the media primarily focused on the religion aspects, that isn't what bothered most people. The problem was the reckless misappropriation of government funds and the clandestine procedures. If they have funded it some other way and gone through normal channels I'm not sure it would have been such a big issue.

Re:Regarding Ron Paul... (1)

FiloEleven (602040) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767865)

* Supports corporate efforts to ship US jobs to China, because jobs are a finite and static resource and employment is a zero-sum competition? They certainly aren't; ask any economist. This point is just plain stupid.
In addition, Paul has spoken in several interviews (and possibly debates) that the way to get corporations to bring jobs back home is not by governmental force, but by creating a desirable atmosphere for them. I don't recall what his thoughts are on what that atmosphere would look like, but his libertarian views should give you a rough idea. The question is then whether a good corporate atmosphere is mutually exclusive with a good individual atmosphere, which Paul seems to think is not the case.

Re:Regarding Ron Paul... (0, Offtopic)

erroneus (253617) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767099)

"Pro-tax cuts, nearly all of which go to the rich" -- That's crap. He's opposed to ALL taxation of citizens. So in reality, unless you're "incorporated" like so many "rich people" actually are and less rich people rarely if ever are, then you're completely wrong about that.

"Anti-U.N." Why is the U.N. good? Because of the "United" part making you feel all warm and fuzzy? Until we can secure our own freedoms from people like Bush, the media companies, the food companies, the oil companies and the communications companies, we have no business attempting to "infect" the rest of the world with our own custom-ordered-for-business-interests law through the U.N. and the World Trade Organization.

"Opposes allowing same-sex partners to adopt" ...well, if that's true, I guess I'll concede that no one is 100% right.

"Opposes restoring the Pledge of Allegiance to the version without Under God'" and then "Co-sponsored Constitutional amendment pushing coerced prayer in public schools" Are you sure he did BOTH? They seem to be opposing views being expressed.

"And so on and so forth." Oh My God! Well I'm convinced now... I wasn't feelin' ya with the others, but that last item was the kicker.

Re:Regarding Ron Paul... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20767669)

"Anti-U.N." Why is the U.N. good? ... we have no business attempting to "infect" the rest of the world with our own custom-ordered-for-business-interests law through the U.N. and the World Trade Organization.
If Bush had listened to the UN, there may not have been a war in Iraq.

"Opposes restoring the Pledge of Allegiance to the version without Under God'" and then "Co-sponsored Constitutional amendment pushing coerced prayer in public schools" Are you sure he did BOTH? They seem to be opposing views being expressed.
I think you ought to read that again. The poster is saying he wants to keep "Under God" in the pledge and force prayer in schools. Whether this is true or not I don't know.

The pledge is stupid anyway, by the way --- it was originally written by a racist SOB who thought that people like Irish and Italians were racially inferior to WASPs, and its original purpose was to indoctrinate immigrants so that they would be loyal to the US ahead of their native country. (How paranoid is this?) Then it later went hand in hand with the Cold War, because surely if you don't pledge allegiance you're a communist. Now that those idiotic times are over, why does the pledge still exist? Forcing school children to "pledge allegiance" to their government is something out of a dictatorship.

Ron Paul slam analysis (1, Offtopic)

StupidKatz (467476) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767189)

Copulating nincompoops for Ron Paul!

        * Opposes federal funding for stem cell research

I.e., not a ban, just no money. Since Ron Paul also would like to abolish the IRS, this makes sense, no?

        * Pro-tax cuts, nearly all of which go to the rich

Pro-no-IRS. How much would a 100% tax cut affect the poor?

        * Anti-U.N.

From a pragmatic standpoint, the US pays for what percentage of the UN budget and gets how much say in return?

        * Favors cutting gas taxes (go figure)

Favors cutting all taxes.

        * Against corporate accountability

You're going to have to expound upon that one.

        * Glorifies Ronald Reagan

No comment.

        * Supports corporate efforts to ship US jobs to China

Is this a slam on the free market? If not, more details needed.

        * Attacks gun control and D.C. self-rule

"D.C. self rule" trumps the Constitution, specifically Amendment #2? News to me...

        * Anti-union

Well, we've been saying he's pretty sharp for an old guy.

        * Opposes hate crime legislation

Supports rule of law, versus thoughtcrime.

        * Supports "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

In other words, if not making passes at the CO, a homosexual private doesn't have much to worry about.

        * Opposes allowing same-sex partners to adopt

Because grand societal experiments involving innocent babies backed up with the force of federal law is such a good idea...

        * Voted to allow bigoted Alabama judge to post Ten Commandments in courtroom

Nevermind US history...

        * Co-sponsored Constitutional amendment pushing coerced prayer in public schools

Because enforced atheism is the only true religion.

        * Opposes restoring the Pledge of Allegiance to the version without "Under God"

What does he think about "In God We Trust"?

        * And so on and so forth.

Sounds like the right man for the job! :)

Re:Regarding Ron Paul... (0, Offtopic)

cluckshot (658931) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767199)

Voted to allow bigoted Alabama judge to post Ten Commandments in courtroom

Why on earth do lies like this one get said. He supported a monument being posted. However; nothing of the sort of this judge being a bigot is real. I know Judge Moore. A kinder more gentleman I have not known, especially in political affairs. He is a most decent man.

I wonder how many more lies are going to be posted to /. and how many more moderators will call it troll or something like that. The simple fact is that Ron Paul is a decent man who holds a strong position set in defense of the USA and its Constitution.

Re:Regarding Ron Paul... (1, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767357)

Why on earth do lies like this one get said. He supported a monument being posted. However; nothing of the sort of this judge being a bigot is real. I know Judge Moore. A kinder more gentleman I have not known, especially in political affairs. He is a most decent man.
Well, the 10 Commandments being displayed in a government building is offensive to those of us who don't believe in them. A display of said monument is a bigotted act. As for whether that makes the man a bigot, I don't know him so I can't say if he is or isn't. If you say he's decent, maybe he is, but I don't know you either, so that's not much to go on.

Re:And this took how long? (4, Informative)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767053)

If the PATRIOT Act is in conflict with the Constitution, then it is unpatriotic, just like the Members of Congress who voted it in and the President who signed the bill.

Agreed. They were so afraid of getting attacked that they ignored the constitution they swore to uphold. So they are, specifically: cowards, traitors, and oath-breakers.

Re:And this took how long? (5, Insightful)

cluckshot (658931) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767369)

I want to pitch a little bit of history of the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. It is critical to this discussion.

The Bill of Rights pushed by the "Anti-Federalists" led by Thomas Jefferson was never intended to give the government power nor was it intended to do anything other than provide a tripwire for the citizens to know the government was getting out of hand. It wasn't an enumeration of rights either. T. Jefferson saw the French Revolution supposed to be a copy of our own revolution going seriously wrong. He built this to prevent terror by the state. That is the reason pure and simple. It was to protect the people from terrorism of the worst kind.

Rather than being a beginner to terrorism as the press and President would have you believe the USA was forged in a sea of terrorism. Its right there in the Declaration of Independence if you want to read it. It happened in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama from 1810 to 1814 with tens of thousands killed. It happened in the Plains Indian Wars of the 1867 to 1885 period. It happened again in the West USA as late as after 1900! (I know my family was there!) Yes it was state sponsored. England Paid the bills. Yes it was religious extremist terrorists every time.

The USA is an ignorant fool if it thinks that giving up its right will make it safe. These rights including the right to be armed are essential rights. Just like removing the quills from a porcupine does not make it safer or protect its rights, removing the rights of people does not make them safe or protect them. Just as a quill free porcupine is now at risk of all terrors people without their rights are the same. As nobody makes a business of kicking porcupines nobody makes a business of picking on a well armed and well defended people who defend their rights.

Today we in the USA see ourselves threatened on every side by a terrorism of the State which is using Al Quada as a mafia enforcer to extract about a trillion dollars in stolen money from the American People each year as a result of this protection racket. This engine of terrorism comes up with new threats every appropriations season in congress. This terrorism by the state has broken our currency stealing more than 1/3 of the value of everything in the USA. It has broken our armed forces in the world and threatens to sink the entire world into a new reign of terror such as has never been seen. All of this is in the name of the "Patriot Act". Real patriots will oppose the sheering of rights that makes this possible.

Re:And this took how long? (-1, Troll)

kir (583) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767763)

WOW! You know a lot of words! ...and that's about it.

Re:And this took how long? (1)

Insightfill (554828) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767527)

If the PATRIOT Act is in conflict with the Constitution, then it is unpatriotic, just like the Members of Congress who voted it in and the President who signed the bill.

Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU, for getting the capitalization right on this Act! I've said it before, but the more we remember to keep the case on this one, the more people remember that it's an acronym, and NOT a description of the Act itself. Seriously: People Attracted To Rodents In Other Tights? Puppies Always Traveling Roughly If Others Try? Politicians Always Try Retiring In Other Towns?

Every time someone repeats it in mixed case, they buy into the whole scam.

Re:And this took how long? (1)

bentcd (690786) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767629)

Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU, for getting the capitalization right on this Act!
To really bring the point home, I would have thought that "P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act" would be even better. It makes it seem more like what it is: a villain from a "The Man From U.N.C.L.E." episode :-)

Re:And this took how long? (2, Informative)

godscent (22976) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767919)

Actually, PATRIOT Act is also wrong. It's the USAPATRIOT Act, or The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.

Re:And this took how long? (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767759)

Does this "Constitution" you're so in love with have the word "Patriot" in it's name? I rest my case.

Re:And this took how long? (5, Insightful)

Sierpinski (266120) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767081)

It would be unpatriotic to vote down the patriot act. Seriously, it would have been a lot easier to defeat had it been named the communist act.

I was asking myself the same question (parent of this parent as well), why did it take several years for something that was so much of a blatant violation of the Bill of Rights be removed? Does it actually take a challenge (ie lawsuit) for a court to overturn anti-constitutional laws?

You can go back even farther, how in the world did Congress ever allow this bill to become law anyway? Oh, did it ride on the coattails of another bill that was a sure-in to be signed? Now THAT is something that I think needs to change. If something is important enough to go before Congress, it should warrant its OWN vote, and not be able to be attached to something else, especially if the bill it's being attached to has nothing to do with the attached bill.

Of course, lets see Congress pass a law outlawing that. Where are the checks and balances here?
They didn't really talk much about the underhanded tricks of Congress in my high school government class.

Re:And this took how long? (4, Informative)

Lloyd_Bryant (73136) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767419)

I was asking myself the same question (parent of this parent as well), why did it take several years for something that was so much of a blatant violation of the Bill of Rights be removed? Does it actually take a challenge (ie lawsuit) for a court to overturn anti-constitutional laws?
Yes. A judge cannot, on his own initiative, declare a law unconstitutional. There first must be a legitimate challenge to the law made by someone. And people can't simply file a suit to challenge *any* law - they must be able to show that they "have standing", which basically means they can show that the law in question has negatively affected them in some fashion.

You can go back even farther, how in the world did Congress ever allow this bill to become law anyway?
It was simply 9/11 madness. If enough people can be sufficiently frightened, then just about *any* law can be ramrodded through Congress. It's one of the great weaknesses in the whole democratic concept, and one of the major reasons that the Founding Fathers put all those checks-and-balances into the Constitution.

Re:And this took how long? (4, Informative)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767427)

I was asking myself the same question (parent of this parent as well), why did it take several years for something that was so much of a blatant violation of the Bill of Rights be removed? Does it actually take a challenge (ie lawsuit) for a court to overturn anti-constitutional laws?
Yes. In theory you could pass another law which says the old law is invalid, but in practice nearly any law will stand until challenged in court. Congress, like any other body of people, rarely wants to admit it was wrong.

You can go back even farther, how in the world did Congress ever allow this bill to become law anyway? Oh, did it ride on the coattails of another bill that was a sure-in to be signed?
As much as I hate that practice, that is not relevant in this case: the PATRIOT act was it's own bill, and it was a sure-in to be signed. It was the immedeate, paniced, reaction to the 9/11 attacks. People wanted Congress to do something anything to make them 'safe' again. Unfortunately in the panic, the bill that was presented made us less safe, not more. But it sounded like it made people safe, so that was enough.

Re:And this took how long? (1)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767761)

Welcome to the American legal system, the wheels of which grind slowly but very fine.

In this case, I'll be writing my elected reps to lord it over all of them. I did write to thank them a couple days ago when I read about how they had tried but failed to pass a measure to repeal that stinking pile of horseshit law called the Patriot Act.

At least the tide seems to be turning back to status pre-September 11, 2001. Too bad it's taken so bleedin' long.

Re:And this took how long? (1)

GrayNimic (1051532) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767825)

They didn't really talk much about the underhanded tricks of Congress in my high school government class.

Either you went to school a long time ago, or you went to a really bad school. A pretty hefty portion of my (public highschool) government class was spent studying (common, legal) congressional tricks.

Re:And this took how long? (1)

servo335 (853111) | more than 6 years ago | (#20766705)

It took so long because the judges were affraid of being arrested and being charged as terrorists by the Dictator in the White House...

Re:And this took how long? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20766791)

Sadly, I think you might be right and that is part of the reason.

How long before it's considered illegal to do something "unamerican"? And don't expect the court - if you're lucky enought to get a trial - to even let you know what unamerican act you commited; it will probaly be unamerican to even describe it.

*sight* What went wrong with the USofA?

Re:And this took how long? (5, Insightful)

durin (72931) | more than 6 years ago | (#20766871)

What went wrong with the USofA?

Bush?

Re:And this took how long? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20766913)

What went wrong with the USofA?

Bush?


Nah, the downfall started before him - otherwise how did he manage to get elected in the first place?

Re:And this took how long? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20767489)

The US government has been at war with someone, somewhere in the world, every single year of the past 100 years.

The US government of today dwarfs the US government of only 100 years ago, both in revenue and power over the people.

The US government is now the most expensive, most powerful government AND world empire (military bases in some 150 countries around the world) that has ever existed.

Clearly, this near-exponential growth of government over the past century began well before Bush was even born, and in all probability, will continue long after he's gone. Forget about who's holding power at any given time -- what we need to recognize is the big picture, and clearly, the big picture shows a government determined to expand in power and revenue year after year.

I think it's time to swallow our pride and accept that the driving force behind government is self-interest. There's a reason why every year we are subject to more laws than the year before, and every year government takes in more revenue than the year before -- and it's not because making government bigger is unprofitable for those in the business of government.

Make no mistake, this is the biggest, most lucrative business that could ever exist.

Re:And this took how long? (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767497)

Failing to impeach Bush the elder for his involvementn in the Iran/Contra affair, which would have doomed his son's political career and the continuing deceit by security personnel working directly for the White House to avoid the laws set by Congress.

Every generation has its misadventures, but remember that Bush the elder was the head of the CIA for a time when they were funding Manuel Noriega's adventures in Panama. He helped teach his son to make deals with awful leaders to protect "American interests", and leave the resulting mess for the next generation to try to clean up.

Re:And this took how long? (1)

rwven (663186) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767605)

Bill Clinton was impeached, yet Hillary still shows a good chance at getting into office. Impeaching Bush Sr wouldn't have made any difference in Bush Jr getting elected.

Re:And this took how long? (5, Funny)

cs02rm0 (654673) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767823)

What went wrong with the USofA?

Bush?

Nah, the downfall started before him - otherwise how did he manage to get elected in the first place?


Bush?

Re:And this took how long? (1, Insightful)

chrish (4714) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767011)

You've spelled "Lobbyists" strangely there.

Re:And this took how long? (1)

Aetuneo (1130295) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767715)

The fact that, while it is moving in the direction of a dictatorship, that I am not the dictator?

And this took how long?-long enough. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20766709)

Because the government and the law are like a barge instead of a speedboat. Just be glad that it CAN still happen (contrary to what the cynics say).

Re:And this took how long?-long enough. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20766817)

Because the government and the law are like a barge instead of a speedboat. Just be glad that it CAN still happen (contrary to what the cynics say).

Funny, breaking the constitution was certainly like a speedboat.

What happens when things break down faster than they can be fixed....

Re:And this took how long?-long enough. (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#20766879)

What happens when things break down faster than they can be fixed
Not to worry. No matter who wins in November 2008, we're all about to find out. HTH. HAND.

Re:And this took how long? (5, Interesting)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#20766905)

I think the history is that the courts have allowed temporary wartime injustices like this in the past, loss of habeas corpus during the Civil War (if you suggested peace with the South you might be arrested), internment of Germans in WWI, and the internment of Japanese in WWII.

The problem is that the current administration wants to have it both ways, wartime/emergency/crisis powers and wants the domestic life to otherwise behave as if there is no emergency, such as repeatedly cutting taxes, despite deficit spending.

Re:And this took how long? (5, Insightful)

neoform (551705) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767343)

You'll notice however that unlike in the past, the Patriot Act was (by it's backers at least) hoped to be a permanent new set of laws. The Patriot Act's original wording might have made it temporary, but that was quickly amended. This was never about being for the war, this was just a power grab, and it worked, despite having just had a part of it overturned.

Think about it like this, if it took 5 years to have a piece of the Patriot Act thrown out.. what's to stop another identical new law from being passed and taking ANOTHER 5 years to have it thrown out, all the while being used to illegally wiretap? The only way to stop this from happening again is prosecute those who did the illegal wiretaps.

Re:And this took how long? (1, Informative)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767389)

I think the history is that the courts have allowed temporary wartime injustices like this in the past, loss of habeas corpus during the Civil War (if you suggested peace with the South you might be arrested), internment of Germans in WWI, and the internment of Japanese in WWII.

The problem is that the current administration wants to have it both ways, wartime/emergency/crisis powers and wants the domestic life to otherwise behave as if there is no emergency, such as repeatedly cutting taxes, despite deficit spending.


I agree with all of what you say except the bold part, which I feel needs a response. So, AGAIN! Please read and learn the principal of the Laffer curve [wikipedia.org] . I don't want to have to explain it again.

Now, we all know that Bush cut taxes after taking office. We also know that the government has been breaking records with tax receipts. The US government has brought in more money than at any point in history. How can this be? How does lowering taxes man more revenue? Well, as you can see from the Laffer curve, if you are on the right side of the peak, lowering taxes means more revenue. So, higher tax receipts prove we were on the right side of that curve.

So, because of what I've stated here, I think it is safe to assume that raising taxes will actually decrease the amount of money the government pulls in, NOT increase it. So WHY WHY WHY would you want to raise taxes? (Could someone ask this on the next YouTube Democratic debate please)

As for deficit spending... the problem is just that, SPENDING! While tax receipts have gone up, government spending has gone up even faster. This is why we have deficits, not because or lower taxes (See Laffer curve [wikipedia.org] )

Re:And this took how long? (3, Funny)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767567)

You misspelled "Reaganomics" there.

Re:And this took how long? (2, Interesting)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767523)

I think the history is that the courts have allowed temporary wartime injustices like this in the past

US is in war with someone almost all the time, what a convenient setup.

So basically, the President has no power to take out civil liberties and break the constitution... buuut he has the power to start a war, declare wartime, and THEN he can do whatever the hell he feels like.

I love it :)

Re:And this took how long? (1)

Th3Tron (1161539) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767027)

"For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law -- with unparalleled success. A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised," With that said alone, really, why did this take 5 years for them to realize something we've been doing correctly for over 200 years already?

Re:And this took how long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20767779)

"For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law -- with unparalleled success. A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised," With that said alone, really, why did this take 5 years for them to realize something we've been doing correctly for over 200 years already?
IANAL but it seems like the right cases have to come along and for defendant's attorneys to actually raise the question of constitutionality before a judge can rule on it. The ACLU has been known to look for or even create test cases just for such purposes.

Driver's License check points seem to be a common area where laws are struck down as unconstitutional just as soon as someone actually is willing to spend the money to fight one on those grounds and a case is appropriate for it. Of course a state's next session of their legislature usually passes yet another unconstitutional law which will be used for justification for such stops until it gets ruled unconstitutional in a sufficiently high court.

Your question would be a good one to be addressed by a professor of constitutional law, with some standing. It would be nice if more of them kept an eye on the actions of the government and commented publicly and regularly on the activities thereof related in a constitutional manner, unfortunately any that did so would risk being drawn into the political aspects of such laws.

Ron Paul will get rid of it all (2, Informative)

vsync64 (155958) | more than 6 years ago | (#20766661)

Ron Paul voted against it in the first place and has tried to restore civil rights at every chance since then.

Most other politicians voted for it without reading it, or were swept up in panic and kneejerk reactions, and now tiptoe around the issue. Ron Paul is adamant in requiring habeas corpus, warrants, and everything else that America has stood for ... until now.

AdBlock Plus Plus (4, Funny)

florescent_beige (608235) | more than 6 years ago | (#20766701)

At what point can we expect an AdBlock Plus, Ron Paul edition? Because, I'm wanting one.

Re:AdBlock Plus Plus (0, Offtopic)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#20766857)

At what point can we expect an AdBlock Plus, Ron Paul edition? Because, I'm wanting one.
You also might wanna try checking disable sigs [slashdot.org] :-D

There is one (1)

gerf (532474) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767449)

It's called NoScript. Unless it's explicitly authorized it cannot be done. However, there's a safely stored whitelist of scripts that are permitted, which we all hold dear.

Re:AdBlock Plus Plus (2, Insightful)

neoform (551705) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767869)

Step 1:

File > Save Page

Step 2:

Open html page in text editor.

Step 3:

Search/Replace "Ron Paul" with "Santa Clause".

Step 4:

Open saved page in browser of choice.

Step 5:

Feelings of good tidings and joy.

MOD PARENT UP (0, Offtopic)

Nymz (905908) | more than 6 years ago | (#20766783)

because he's right. Too many politicians are spineless and corrupt, changing their viewpoints everytime the wind blows, instead of standing on principles.

MOD Principles UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20766915)

Why should politicans stand on principles [josephsoninstitute.org] when the American people can't. [twice.com]

Re:MOD PARENT UP (5, Insightful)

RobBebop (947356) | more than 6 years ago | (#20766929)

Changing viewpoints isn't such a bad thing when new information concludes that your current viewpoint is wrong. What really bothers me is how the current American administration marches forward with their "principles" despite a vast quantity of evidence that suggests they are wrong.

That's corruption without a lack of a spine... and it is even more dangerous.

Re:MOD PARENT UP (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20767239)

Too many Americans are spineless and corrupt, changing their viewpoints everytime the wind blows, instead of standing on principles.

there - fixed that for ya.

Re:Ron Paul will get rid of it all (-1, Troll)

ragedriven (1047722) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767075)

ron paul is a laugh riot! a republican who's not a republican?!? please lets just hold a funeral for the constitution if he's elected

Re:Ron Paul will get rid of it all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20767387)

don't start on Ron Paul; other than expressing support for him its very difficult indeed for a slashdotter to come out as a republican, you insensitive clod.

(mumbles something about libertarianism & "i'm not a right-wing cocksucker, honest to god")

Useless Victory (4, Insightful)

CWRUisTakingMyMoney (939585) | more than 6 years ago | (#20766685)

Great...now how will anyone be able to use this ruling if they don't know they've been searched in the first place? You need legal standing to sue, and that means being able to prove you've been searched, which act will be either 1) impossible or 2) illegal under the same Act.

Re:Useless Victory (4, Informative)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 6 years ago | (#20766885)

So cynical...while it has limited utility, the decision is not useless. Police tend to use surveillance techniques and police procedures which procure evidence that can be used to obtain a conviction; if the Act is unconstitutional, evidence obtained under its provisions is inadmissible in court. Knowing that, police agencies will be less likely to use powers in accord with those provisions, since anything that they gather using it will be useless in a court of law.

Yes I know police do go off the rails--"Don't taze me, bro!"--but at least a ruling of this sort curbs one of the worst abuses that can emanate from inappropriate police investigative conduct, namely convictions in a court of law.

Re:Useless Victory (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767601)

Police who misuse such powers also lie, and pretend "national security" when told to produce the foundation for their search. They also gather political, not criminal, information. The FBI history of this goes right back to J. Edgar Hoover gathering information on peaceful protesters.

This will sound very pessimistic (3, Interesting)

Zombie Ryushu (803103) | more than 6 years ago | (#20766717)

I have a feeling that in some way we will see a repeat of the Indian Removal act with this. Congress and the President will say: The justices have made their decision, now let them enforce it.

Re:This will sound very pessimistic (1)

spookymonster (238226) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767015)

But... isn't that the responsibility of the Executive branch of the federal government? Can he/they honestly refuse to not enforce the law? I mean legally of course... lord knows Bush thinks he's entitled to do damn near anything these days...

If Congress doesn't go after him (1)

InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767139)

"Can he/they honestly refuse to not enforce the law?"

If he can expect no recourse from Congress, he can safely ignore whatever the judiciary says. And in this case, with an election so close, my bet is on Congress leaving him alone. Whichever party wins, they know it would be bad if another terrorist attack occurred on their watch, so even if the Patriot Act is ineffective and actually counterproductive, they will want everything at their disposal to maintain their image.

It will be the responsibility of the losing party to bring down the Patriot Act after the election... only to reinstate it under another name before the following election.

Re:This will sound very pessimistic (1)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767221)

I would think that they can live with this. After all, it doesn't prevent searches, it only means that they have to clear them with a judge first. Historically, this has not been hard to do-- the judge only hears one side, and they almost always sign off. There's no reason they can't do this. What this does is give a paper trail for a search, so if the reason is political, you may be able to determine it-- or, at least, they will have to have a plausible cover story. But it doesn't significantly impact real searches.

And tonight's top story.... (-1, Troll)

isa-kuruption (317695) | more than 6 years ago | (#20766751)

A liberal federal judge, appointed by B.J. Clinton, has ruled a couple Patriot Act provisions unconstitutional. And this just in.... the sky is blue and scientists have concluded that dinosaurs are extinct. Back to you, Diane.

Re:And tonight's top story.... (4, Informative)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 6 years ago | (#20766853)

It has nothing to do with being a liberal. A lot of republicans voted for it and a lot of democrats did too. Hell, media darlings Hillary Clinton voted for it twice (original and renewal) and Barack Obama voted for the renewal of it.

The patriot act is just unconstitutional. Watch this video for a better understanding for where the country is heading (skip into 2:35 of the first video):
Part 1:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=t8QwTKKSvR8 [youtube.com]
Part 2:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GXzUL9KkgvA [youtube.com]
Part 3:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=35yhSifZ5jI [youtube.com]
Part 4:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fRukPp9Tq5k [youtube.com]

Profile:
http://youtube.com/user/FutureFreedomF [youtube.com]

MOD PARENT UP (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#20766933)

It has nothing to do with being a 'liberal' or a 'conservative'. They're all taking away your rights, and finally there's one judge with the balls to try to give them back to you.

Re:And tonight's top story.... (0)

isa-kuruption (317695) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767067)

So when is she going to rule that I can purchase automatic weapons, ya know, under that pesky second amendment, because ya know, that current ban is unconstitutional? Oh, that's right, she won't.

Re:And tonight's top story.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20767141)

are you a member of a well regulated militia?

i thought not.

Re:And tonight's top story.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20767307)

Actually, without even debating actual meaning of the Second Amendment... yes, the GP probably is. Current US law [findlaw.com] :

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

Re:And tonight's top story.... (5, Insightful)

wytcld (179112) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767263)

America is more than just its Constitution. America is its people. A patriot is more loyal to the people than to a piece of paper. The people, on the whole, are only semi-literate anyway, so no piece of paper can bring order to them. What brings order isn't paper, but a great leader. We don't like Hitler, Stalin and Mao not because they were great leaders, but because they led countries other than America. Great leaders thrive in warrior cultures. Now there is a choice before us: Do we go forward with the warrior culture of Great Leader Bush, putting Rudy or Mitt or Fred in his place - leaders who even the semi-literate can understand - or do we retreat into "Constitutional" leadership which is hobbled, nuanced, afraid of battle - and beyond what the American people as a whole can comprehend and unite behind?

For decades polls have shown the American people would not support the Bill of Rights if it were up for a vote today. Finally we have a government that's done something about that. It takes a judge to get in the way, to confuse things.

Dada or irony? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20767841)

Seeing the web site "http://www.thetao.info/tao/whitecloud1.htm" atop a comment espousing the "great man" theory of history is pretty weird.

The sage is self-effacing in his dealings with all under heaven, and worries his mind for the sake of all under heaven.
The common people all rivet their eyes upon him, and the sage makes them all chuckle like children. -- Lao Tse


Doesn't the Tao teach us that a truly great leader does very little (just a little back-room maneuvering with little or no fanfare, that leads to the needs of the people being best served without their even knowing what is going on) and that only poor leaders are full of military bombast and jingoistic propaganda? By the standards of Taoism, the men you've explicitly mentioned are all very poor leaders because they expended huge amounts of efforts in self-aggrandizement and military adventuring while millions were dispossessed or starved, and the economies of their nations collapsed.

Re:And tonight's top story.... (1)

slughead (592713) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767479)

This [google.com] is my personal favorite. It explains that the expansion of governmental power has been going on for quite some time, sighting specific examples and laws.

Score one for the Founding Fathers (2, Insightful)

Crock23A (1124275) | more than 6 years ago | (#20766773)

I am by no means an expert on the constitution or politics but everything I've read about the Patriot Act seems to go against what I was taught in school. This sounds like a first step back towards where this country was intended to be.

All I have to say is... (5, Insightful)

CFBMoo1 (157453) | more than 6 years ago | (#20766785)

It's about damn time we don't give up our principles for security. Glad to see someone in the three branches of government finally standing up for whats right. I don't want security in my country if it gives my government a blank check to do whatever it pleases. We all know what could happen down the road if governments get too much control and decide they could do what they like.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/09/27/myanmar.protests/index.html [cnn.com]

That could very well be in our future if we write blank checks for terrorism prevention. Lets keep our own house in order so when we go to clean up someone elses house we don't look like fools.

Re:All I have to say is... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20766903)

That could very well be in our future
Some true students of history might even say it has been our past and in some cases the past is so recent as to be called our present. Since we have forgotten and failed to recognize things for what they are, it will be our future as well with variations in circumstance and degrees.

Re:All I have to say is... (1)

durin (72931) | more than 6 years ago | (#20766927)

Lets keep our own house in order so when we go to clean up someone elses house we don't look like fools.

It's a little late for that...

Extraconstitutional authority (1, Interesting)

An dochasac (591582) | more than 6 years ago | (#20766809)

Judge Aiken's opinion said in finding violations of the Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure. "A shift to a nation based on extraconstitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill advised."

I'll bet W is wondering where in the constitution it says "Extraconsitutional Authority is prohibited"

This comment is powered by the energy generated by dynamos attached to the spinning graves of J. Edgar Hoover, Joe McCarthey, Richard Nixon...

Re:Extraconstitutional authority (-1, Flamebait)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 6 years ago | (#20766899)

I'll bet W is wondering where in the constitution it says "Extraconsitutional Authority is prohibited"

His question is more likely to be "Where/What is the Constitution?".

Re:Extraconstitutional authority (1)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767167)

Which is disturbing in and of itself, because it means he hears the disembodied voice of Alex Trebek in his head and always believes he is participating in a game of Jeopardy!. Seriously, this would explain a lot.

Re:Extraconstitutional authority (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20767173)

10th Ammendment

Those powers which are not explicitly granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the People

Or some such thing. Kinda ignored for a long time.

The Bravest Woman in American Government (2, Interesting)

0x7E7 (993733) | more than 6 years ago | (#20766931)

What amazes me, frankly, is that this has happened at all. From what I've seen in my short life, most people who rise to positions of authority in the U.S. Government are totally unwilling to trade their position and prestige for Constitutional principle. Although I am unfamiliar with her situation, I suspect that this particular judge will rise no higher in the ranks of the Federal Government (which may not be her wish, anyway).

As an aside, I am really tired of hearing about all of the cool stuff around health care and civil rights coming out of Oregon. I'm from New York, and damn it, they're making us "East Coast Liberals" look like a bunch of featherweights who never get anything done.

Re:The Bravest Woman in American Government (2, Insightful)

Temkin (112574) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767591)

Although I am unfamiliar with her situation, I suspect that this particular judge will rise no higher in the ranks of the Federal Government



That would be up to us. If we remember her for her good works, and demand her promotion via the electoral process, she will advance. If we keep electing corporate plutocrats... Perhaps not.

Floored (2, Interesting)

n3tcat (664243) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767009)

I'm stunned. I had no idea the American system was still capable of curing these problems anymore.

I was well on the way to staying in Germany permanently due to the issues I've had with the US government over the last few years. Big victories like this one cause me to stop and reflect, however, and several more actions of this nature will make living in America seem appealing again.

yuo FaIl It (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20767103)

toosers, went out another cunting

Interesting (1)

Veetox (931340) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767137)

I think the ruling in this case was much more apropos than the privacy concerns in the past - privacy is one of those rights that seems to have very little force in the face of all kinds of laws. For example, many abortion proponents including R.B. Ginsberg have expressed that the ruling in RvW was regrettable because it was based on privacy rather than a more logical and constitutional standard. Still, this current case will likely hit the supreme court in one way or another, and by the time it gets seen there, will Bush still be in office; will the Patriot Act still be in effect, or will Congress have eliminated it by then?

Bush's response (2, Funny)

ciaran.mchale (1018214) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767293)

I expect Bush will say something like "The judge's ruling shows that the constitution is unpatriotic and therefore needs to be changed."

Yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20767333)

It is way past f'ing time that some fed judge made this ruling.

Obligatory Kdawson troll (-1, Troll)

navygeek (1044768) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767431)

Whoa! A political-esque story that's sure to ruin G-dub's day and it wasn't posted by Kdawson! I wonder if he's the one that submitted it, under a disguise!

Amazing it made it this far! (5, Insightful)

TheSpatulaOfLove (966301) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767443)

When they began talking about the unPatriot Act, I called BS immediately. This administration and Congress have wiped their collective asses with the Constitution and they should be indicted for treason.

Fine, I'll give the legislators a bone here about passing this legislation while everyone was reeling from 9/11, but I still can't believe that our leaders who are voted to protect the Constitution VOTED FOR IT AGAIN! Amazing!

This piece of garbage is not about 'protecting freedom' - it's all about control and falls in line with Daddy Bush's vision of the New World Order. The largest obstacle to this was the American Constitution. Take away those rights, and it's easy to become dictator. I'm glad SOMEONE in power woke the fuck up and saw that the unPatriot Act pretty much canceled out every major right the Constitution guarantees US citizens!


They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Attemted treason (4, Insightful)

Froze (398171) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767467)

Wouldn't it be great if we could charge all those who signed the bill into law with attempted treason?

I don't know (1)

KiwiCanuck (1075767) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767639)

Will the 4th amendment hold up in today's court system? I doubt the people writing these law have read the constitution. Or they think that no one will notice. The lawyers will notice, that's why their paid.

What is happening to /.? (0)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767897)

Another political story that has nothing to do with technology :-( (Unless you want to focus on the improper fingerprint id). Oh well, at least I can mix up my day a little bit.

I actually know Judge Aiken on a first name basis (my mom was her courtroom clerk for years) and this is right in line with her hard-charging, proactive style. Not that this is a bad thing, but sometimes I get the feeling she is trying just a little too hard and goes out of her way to make eye-opening decisions like this. I don't totally disagree with her ruling but I'm willing to bet there are thousands of people who are much smarter than me that do.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>