(no subject)

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/12/three-reasons-the-nothing-to-hide-crowd
http://www.cato.org/blog/why-nsa-collecting-phone-records-problem
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110524/00084614407/privacy-is-not-secrecy-debunking-if-youve-got-nothing-to-hide-argument.shtml
http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/the-data-trust-blog/2009/02/debunking-a-myth-if-you-have-n.html

There are a significant number of people who respond to any revelation that government is violating the law (yes, the Constitution is part of the law) with a shrug and "I've got nothing to hide". These people are selfish fools at best. They are not looking at the bigger picture and/or aren't considering other people. Plus, they probably aren't paying attention to the fact that everyone in America is currently a criminal, that everyone violates a law with serious penalties at some point, whether you know it or not. (And the fact that that is the case is another problem, but that's outside the scope of my point here.)

Even Biden and Obama railed against what they are themselves supporting now, before they were in power. That alone should be enough to make you stop and think about what having that kind of power available can do to people.

Comments

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

It is analogous. And that makes the answer for the gun debate the same as for this one. Constitution says the government can't take our guns and the Constitution says the government can't search us without a warrant. There is no exception for the "effectiveness of the outcome" of the unconstitutional laws and policies.

The only thing that is analogous is the simple minded view of the U.S. Constitution by We the Amateurs vs. the simple minded view of razor blades by a baby.

We the Amateurs: Oooooohhh, the Constitution is sooooooooo simple.

A baby: Oooooohhh, these things are is sooooooooo shiny.

Interpreting the Constitution is why we have a Supreme Court.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

We don't have the Supreme Court to explain the Constitution to us. We don't need it, for example, to tell us that a newspaper can write an editorial critical of the President.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

We don't have the Supreme Court to explain the Constitution to us.

Thanks, We the Amateurs

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

The Supreme Court settles Constitutional questions. This does not make the Constitution a document whose meaning is to be decided by a small set of Ivy League graduates.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

This does not make the Constitution a document whose meaning is to be decided by a small set of Ivy League graduates.
Really?
The Supreme Court settles Constitutional questions
You just contradicted your own statement.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

No I did not. See as an example a newspaper writing an editorial critical of the president. We don't need the Supreme Court to tell us that the newspaper can do that. The Supreme Court is for more subtle questions, and for keeping the other branches in check, making sure they aren't violating the Constitution.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

We don't need the Supreme Court to tell us that the newspaper can do that.

Yes we do, if the government ever tells the newspaper writer that he can't do that, or passes a law stating that the newspaper can't do that.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

We don't need the Supreme Court to tell us that the newspaper can do that in order to know that they can.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

We don't need the Supreme Court to tell us that the newspaper can do that in order to know that they can.

Really? So if a newspaper prints an editorial that reveals information that is sensitive to national security, like revealing a double agent (which has happened), or presents a credible threat to the President (which is a crime), We the Amateurs are going to be the ones who decide the liability? I don't think so.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

See as an example a newspaper writing an editorial critical of the president.