Originally Posted by 98CoupeV6
Are you serious dude? The review was over this question:
QUESTION PRESENTED (U)
Whether the FISC erred in denying in relevant part an application
Do you see it now? The question was whether or not FISA was allowed to authorize part of an application and not all of it.
Originally Posted by 98CoupeV6
AKA, whether or not FISC is constitutional. The petition was filed by the ACLU, good thing they took a break from defending child molesters.
Again, the straw man fallacy. I'll explain it again at the bottom of this post, where you go a little nutty about baseball.
Originally Posted by 98CoupeV6
Actually I have no idea. Since I'm so dumb, why don't you tell me? You've smartly avoided my bolding of the word unreasonable.
The justice system talks about a search being reasonable based on the presence or absence of "just cause." Absent just cause, like the smell of cordite on me, or things less extreme, NYPD has no cause to search me. Hence the search is
unreasonable. (Now that I've put words in bold, is it easier for you to understand?)
Originally Posted by 98CoupeV6
I love how debating with every lib is the same. For Christ's sake, tell me how it violates the constitution!
Search without just cause = unreasonable. The constitution requires just cause. Clear enough?
Originally Posted by 98CoupeV6
Explain to me how this is unreasonable? It would be unreasonable if they strip searched you or if they went inside your home. It's not unreasonable to delay you for 15 seconds to ensure that you aren't carrying an explosive device.
It is unreasonable if they have no cause to search me, as with the NYPD searches. Every announcement I hear reminds me that the searches may be "random." I put the word in double-quotes not for emphasis, but because that is the word they always use.
Originally Posted by 98CoupeV6
...which is exactly why I said nothing about it since it's a can of worms not even opening. The USA PATRIOT Act clearly affirms the right of government to do wiretapping on just about anyone they please, I was trying to find examples outside of that. But being the good little liberal with talking points that you seem to be, you made sure to bring it up
Thats right, being a good liberal and a good American I tend to examine the big picture and not narrow my focus to the point where any meaningful debate becomes impossible.
Originally Posted by 98CoupeV6
Once again, what rights of yours have specifically been violated?
This is a valid point. My fourth amendment rights have not yet been violated by the NYPD. The idea that I should wait until they do to say something about it is dumb. How many times have I heard that liberty must be guarded vigilantly? Why should I sit back and wait for them to come when I have no rights left?
Originally Posted by 98CoupeV6
Why? People like you are blinded by their hatred and use personal opinion and talking points instead of examples, precedents and facts. I think it's entirely worthwhile to point out that you are, in fact, just a liberal who hates Bush. It's similiar to watching a Yankees-Red Sox game with a guy who absolutely HATES the Yankees...you know he's gonna say that A-Rod is the biggest POS ever and that he's the most overrated player in baseball. How exactly am I 'ignoring' your position
Are my constitutional and court references detracting from your opinions?
The fact that I'm a liberal who hates Bush has no relevence to this argument because you could change my underlying beliefs and the argument would still be valid and true. To wit:
1. The Constitution requires a warrant (fourth amendment) and due process (fifth amendment) when the government wants to implement wiretaps.
2. President Bush intentionally and repeatedly ignored the Constitution.
3. President Bush's actions were unconstitutional.
If Laura Bush presented this argument, it would still be true. That is why my personal beliefs are irrelevent to the validity and truth of the argument. If you really still don't see it, PM me and we can talk about syllogistic logic.
Originally Posted by 98CoupeV6
Now try using some facts to back up your arguments instead of BS and personal opinion
OOohhhh, a smiley face. You're really bringing it now. How will I ever defend my ideas against that kind of bulletproof argument?