"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

Posted by sdesapio 9 years, 11 months ago to Politics
101 comments | Share | Flag

From the article:

During the first Republican presidential debate of the 2016 election cycle, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky stood out a bit when he cited America’s second president.

It came during a heated exchange with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie about how much government intrusiveness was needed to keep Americans safe from terrorism.

"I want to collect more records from terrorists, but less records from innocent Americans," said Paul, who has been a leading voice in his party for privacy from government intrusion. "The Fourth Amendment was what we fought the Revolution over. John Adams said it was the spark that led to our war for independence, and I'm proud of standing for the Bill of Rights, and I will continue to stand for the Bill of Rights."


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Which "black people"? That post directed at "the black people" is racist.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    A good example is GPS. Global Positioning System. I'm truly amazed at how many in my own boating community these days have little concept or knowledge on how to navigate without GPS. Point one the system belongs to the US Government, specifically the US Military. point two it can be turned off completely or geographically on a selective area basis or the results degraded ( accuracy to within X distance) according to their needs. In a war zone no one cares about a bunch of yachties. Nor should they. The second system is Euro and has the exact same government controls.
    Something as simple as having on board books such as Emergency Navigation seems to escape a lot of people these days. So my opinion of them is "you cared so little for your lives why should we risk ours now that you are in trouble."

    The nice thing about living in an area with on again off again internet reminds me I can look out the window for a weather report, look down the street for a traffic report and as for the rest of it there's not much of real importance.

    I'm sure I would miss my occasional Amazon orders far far more than anything the news has to offer. Preceded or followed by instant research. But it augments not replaces any decent library if there is such a thing any more.

    As for our permission? When was that made a requirement? Certainly not since the 1930's for broadcast information such as tv and radio or just communication such as cell phones.

    As far as electricity is concerned I flip two switches and change to full solar and wind generated electricity. then think of what I should cook in the little freezer unit which is going to take 24 to 72 hours to thaw out anyway.

    If you can't say the same thing the next move is knees on floor hands clasped and lots of intense supplications Who knows it might work?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 11 months ago
    Did he or has he put forth a bill in Congress to get it back? When does the talk stop and the action begin?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by philosophercat 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You are right but the idea behind was Locke's view of property and individual sovereignty. Jefferson held Locke, Newton, and Bacon as the three greatest people whoever lived. Add Aristotle and he is right on. Add Rand to solve the problem of universals and it is all done. Can we protect the freedom they gave us? Only by reason and passionate claim of our rights.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by teri-amborn 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes.
    The problem is that the voting populace needs to have it articulated in simple terms such as: Think about how you would live in a society where there was no internet and no electricity.
    Now: Think about how the government could suddenly make that happen without your knowledge not permission.
    THAT is an abstraction upon an abstraction.
    Based upon what our government actually is doing it isn't such a remote and non-personal possibility.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by philosophercat 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    term2, I suggest you read the greatest speech in American History, Webster's reply to Haynes ending with "one Union. now and forever." Ideas moved men in the age of reason and honor and the idea of a great nation founded on a moral principle was not to be torn apart by those who enslaved others. In those days people cared about their character. Read J. Adams Autobiography on how he yearned to improve his character and aspired to honors and achievement through reason. Remember the phrase, "We Pledge our Lives fortunes and sacred honor." There are few if any that can say they have lives with fortune or honor. PS the South had no riches. Read Sherman's autobiography to better understand the South.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There are a lot of good hard working people in/near Atlanta. Then there are the ones with connections to the mayor.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The Constitution was a document specifying the functions and limits of government. It was not a philosophical document. The compromises in the framing of the Constitution were on matters of specifying government functions, not philosophy. It presupposed a political philosophy of individualism of individualism from the Enlightenment and was designed to protect against actions by the Federal government. It was not about Mormons. It was not about freedom from England, whose rule had been overthrown years before. It was not about freedom of Indian individuals versus others; it had some provisions for dealing with Indian tribes, who were still carrying on wars that were a threat at the time. It had nothing to do with the Civil War which came in the following century and was not for fought over economic motives according to Marx.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The false impression I got was the story they taught me as a kid. The constitution is a compromise designed to not repeat the English colonial model
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The Constitution was not intended to provide philosophical justifications, which are also not dumbing it down. The Constitution only specified the authorized functions of and limits on government. It presupposed a political philosophy.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Christie responded that he remembers hugging victims of the storm, as if a politician engaging in the usual campaign antics like kissing babies, grabbing hands and hugging is an excuse for drooling over Obama.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You got a false impression of the founding of the nation and the civil war.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    They are saving the personal data and turning it over to others. The statistics for quality control are not the controversy.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello JB:
    Christy using the excuse of protecting the American People, allows the massacre of the 4th Amendment. His failure to respond to Paul's accusations labels him as a dictator waiting in the wings. We already have a violator of the Constitution in office. We don't need another.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by teri-amborn 9 years, 11 months ago
    In order to glean the real nectar from the fourth ammendment, one must be able to read between the lines of what the founders had been through and what they perceived would be needed "boundaries" against an out-of-control invasive government.
    These wonderful thinkers wrote in abstractions.
    They realized human nature would eventually take over the government and the Bill of Rights was written so that citizens would be free from an overbearing, problem-creating government.

    Hopefully, Rand has some impact in the area of abstractions and can "dumb it down" for the average citizen.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Lest I unsettle you, my second thought about this letter was "What follows?" Obamacare required a transfer of the mythical Medicare funds to the tune of $500M, and a reduction in outlay has to come from somewhere. Could the next letter be a threat that if I didn't comply with the required services, I could be dropped from Medicare as a risk? I have no doubt that at some point I will be notified that I will be denied certain medical treatments because, in the government's judgment, it would be "counterproductive" to perform such treatment on someone with so few years left.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by bsmith51 9 years, 11 months ago
    Making the haystack bigger only makes finding the needle more problematic. But to those in government it really isn't about the needle anyway, except as an excuse to control the haystack.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by term2 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I find for some reason the black people on the east coast, like Atlanta, are far less "entitled" and if I treat them as any other person, they are very friendly. On the west coast (I live in LV), they seem to have a chip on their shoulder. They expect to be special. Its bad
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by scojohnson 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That's true. I often feel horrible when I'm 'surprised' to meet a black person that has a career... Our black population here on the left coast seems to be substantially more coddled than the norm though.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    My reply was to your comment: "The Constitution and the Bill of Rights imposes restrictions on the government not on individual citizens."
    You are going to ignore the text of the rest of the bill of rights ? Sorry, not rational or convincing. If you want to say SOME of the bill of rights specifically restrict government, while others are broader and protect rights against all, then I would agree. ;^)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ProfChuck 9 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Fourth Amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." I would suggest a careful reading of the "Federalist Papers" to appreciate what the founders intended.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo