Constitional question...not a party political discussion...a legal question.

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3224100
security does not = privacy
If the 4th were applicable, your phone records, credit card transactions and internet activity would all have to be guaranteed private from the government. They are not.
Government needs a warrant to get into phone records and such now. Same with bank records unless you move a large sum of money, I think over 12K now. Then they are just notified of those records.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3224109
Government needs a warrant to get into phone records and such now.
They did. Under the Patriot Act, the conditions under which those warrants are issued have changed. They can data mine quite independently of what the conditions of warrant stipulate.
(Don't misunderstand me here, I'm not trying to politicize the debate in bringing up the Patriot Act - it would not have passed w/o the approval of both parties working in concert.)
Same with bank records unless you move a large sum of money, I think over 12K now. Then they are just notified of those records.
12k may be correct, it used to be 10k, and then only if it was in cash. I'm not sure where electronic fund transfers fall. That's an IRS stipulation and, as such, tends to fall outside the bounds of Constitutionality in practice. I do find it interesting that that code has existed since the early part of the last century yet the government has not seen fit to adjust dollar amount for inflation. 10/12k used to be a huge amount of money. (At the time of its inception a model T could be purchased brand new for $290.)
The 4th is interpreted to mean privacy, but because it's not specifically enumerated in the Constitution as such, the "right" is not concrete. It's a matter of case by case adjudication - usually after the fact - and not always in favor of We the People.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3224127
They did. Under the Patriot Act, the conditions under which those warrants are issued have changed. They can data mine quite independently of what the conditions of warrant stipulate.
(Don't misunderstand me here, I'm not trying to politicize the debate in bringing up the Patriot Act - it would not have passed w/o the approval of both parties working in concert.)
12k may be correct, it used to be 10k, and then only if it was in cash. I'm not sure where electronic fund transfers fall. That's an IRS stipulation and, as such, tends to fall outside the bounds of Constitutionality in practice. I do find it interesting that that code has existed since the early part of the last century yet the government has not seen fit to adjust dollar amount for inflation. 10/12k used to be a huge amount of money. (At the time of its inception a model T could be purchased brand new for $290.)
The 4th is interpreted to mean privacy, but because it's not specifically enumerated in the Constitution as such, the "right" is not concrete. It's a matter of case by case adjudication - usually after the fact - and not always in favor of We the People.
Being secure against unreasonable search, thus guarantying privacy. Patriot act is justified based on the notion they are listening to someone not in this country, not the citizen. Not trying to justify it, that the rational they used.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3224074
Government doesn't have my fingerprints.
That is because you went to school back when they weren't fingerprinting kids as a method to find them if ever taken....of course they weren't driving cars then either.
You have never been arrested either...at least not in the last century.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3224175
That is because you went to school back when they weren't fingerprinting kids as a method to find them if ever taken....of course they weren't driving cars then either.
You have never been arrested either...at least not in the last century.
Never arrested, never printed for a license, I think I should have been when I got my Colorado one but they didn't.

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3224109
Same with bank records unless you move a large sum of money, I think over 12K now. Then they are just notified of those records.
Not true, at least a State level (and i would assume the same at Federal) it only requires a subpeona, which will produce detailed bank records regardless of amount in it.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3224214
Not true, at least a State level (and i would assume the same at Federal) it only requires a subpeona, which will produce detailed bank records regardless of amount in it.
In either case you have to show probable cause to a court to get them.

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3224220
In either case you have to show probable cause to a court to get them.
Not in Nebraska, you just print one up and send it out. The Nebraska Dept. of Revenue does it all the time.

 

[sickboy]

For business accounts anyway...

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3223946
I can't find anything about this in our constitution or laws.
So I have to ask. Is it legal for a first lady or first husband (the only position not addressed as far as I can read) to hold position of first lady/ husband and Supreme Court Justice or Congressman/woman?
Technically I don't think so. In the spirit of the law my view is some what nuanced.
I don't have a problem with Hillary going to back and being Senator (after all the VEEP does have a roll in the senate) Now if A president nominated his wife to be a supreme court justice, I do think that would violate the concept of separation of powers, and checks and balances. You can't write rules to cover everything...

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3224319
Technically I don't think so. In the spirit of the law my view is some what nuanced.
I don't have a problem with Hillary going to back and being Senator (after all the VEEP does have a roll in the senate) Now if A president nominated his wife to be a supreme court justice, I do think that would violate the concept of separation of powers, and checks and balances. You can't write rules to cover everything...
Like I said, the Constitution lets you nominate anyone, you just have to get them by the Senate.
I could be nominated for Supreme Court, but would the Senate put a non lawyer in the SC?
As to Hillary going back to be a Senator, look up the definition of "carpet bagger".

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3224416
Like I said, the Constitution lets you nominate anyone, you just have to get them by the Senate.
I could be nominated for Supreme Court, but would the Senate put a non lawyer in the SC?
As to Hillary going back to be a Senator, look up the definition of "carpet bagger".
Now, now oscar. No political bashing in this thread.

 

[srfisher17]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3223953
I didn't think so...would this be a conflict of interest? and hard to believe it has never been approached in our vast history..
Hilary's health care role was never questioned; she had more power than most Cabinet Members.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by srfisher17
http:///forum/post/3224495
Hilary's health care role was never questioned; she had more power than most Cabinet Members.

true, but she couldnt cast a vote on it. What if michelle obama ran for illinois crongresswoman and won....this is an example of what i am going after.
the president would then gain a vote in congress essentially.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3224416
Like I said, the Constitution lets you nominate anyone, you just have to get them by the Senate.
I could be nominated for Supreme Court, but would the Senate put a non lawyer in the SC?
As to Hillary going back to be a Senator, look up the definition of "carpet bagger".
Can you have an opposite carpet bagger? After all Carpet Baggers came from the north to the south... Not the other way around...

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3224441
Now, now oscar. No political bashing in this thread.
I'm not bashing, just telling the truth.

Hillary did exceed her limits while first lady IMO, there was no "advise and consent" with what she was doing. I was in medical school at the time, and if the bill had gone through as described, I may not have been able to choose my specialty, the gov't would have chosen for me.

 

[srfisher17]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3224512
true, but she couldnt cast a vote on it. What if michelle obama ran for illinois crongresswoman and won....this is an example of what i am going after.
the president would then gain a vote in congress essentially.
In today's world; I doubt any Federal Court would bar someone from holding office because of their spouse. But, wouldn't the Hatch Act come in? IF the 1st Lady is an employee of the federal government; there are serious restrictions on what she can do, as far as running for office. I just can't remember all the Hatch Act details and sure ain't gonna look it up now.

 

[srfisher17]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3224530
I'm not bashing, just telling the truth.

Hillary did exceed her limits while first lady IMO, there was no "advise and consent" with what she was doing. I was in medical school at the time, and if the bill had gone through as described, I may not have been able to choose my specialty, the gov't would have chosen for me.
I would imagine Sen. Scott Brown is one of your heroes right now. (He sure is one of mine!)

 

[srfisher17]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3224512
true, but she couldnt cast a vote on it. What if michelle obama ran for illinois crongresswoman and won....this is an example of what i am going after.
the president would then gain a vote in congress essentially.
Maybe. But would you have told Hilary Clinton how she was going to vote? I'm not that brave. Its very common for the spouses (and kids, etc.) of lawmakers to have very influential jobs in the private sector. Conflict of interest is really an area with no real answers; unless you can show a crime has taken place.