QOD
If I am not doing anything illegal, why do I care if the government listens and/or watches me?
Of all the fines levied against him, how much will Donald Trump actually pay?
Recent Comments
- Jason on Song of the Day 10/6: Pink Floyd, “See Emily Play”
- mediawatch on DL Open Thread: Sunday, October 6, 2024
- Alby on DL Open Thread: Sunday, October 6, 2024
- Alby on DL Open Thread: Sunday, October 6, 2024
- Anon on Was The DelDems Coordinated Campaign Merely An LBR Vanity Project?
- puck on DL Open Thread: Sunday, October 6, 2024
- elliej on DL Open Thread: Sunday, October 6, 2024
- El Somnambulo on DL Open Thread: Sunday, October 6, 2024
- puck on DL Open Thread: Sunday, October 6, 2024
- bamboozer on DL Open Thread: Sunday, October 6, 2024
- Alby on DL Open Thread: Saturday, Oct. 5, 2024
- Grant Brunner on DL Open Thread: Sunday, October 6, 2024
- Alby on DL Open Thread: Saturday, Oct. 5, 2024
- El Somnambulo on DL Open Thread: Saturday, Oct. 5, 2024
- PS on DL Open Thread: Saturday, Oct. 5, 2024
- PS on DL Open Thread: Saturday, Oct. 5, 2024
- Alby on DL Open Thread: Saturday, Oct. 5, 2024
- SussexWatcher on DL Open Thread: Saturday, Oct. 5, 2024
- Alby on DL Open Thread: Saturday, Oct. 5, 2024
- El Somnambulo on DL Open Thread: Saturday, Oct. 5, 2024
- mediawatch on DL Open Thread: Saturday, Oct. 5, 2024
- Wayne S Whirld on DL Open Thread: Saturday, Oct. 5, 2024
- Wayne S Whirld on DL Open Thread: Saturday, Oct. 5, 2024
- El Somnambulo on DL Open Thread: Saturday, Oct. 5, 2024
- Popp on DL Open Thread: Saturday, Oct. 5, 2024
The Vault
Follow Us
Connect
Connect with us on the following social media platforms.
© 2024 Delaware Liberal. All rights reserved. Theme by Solostream.
Because you are then not free. If you know you are being watched, you will tailor your behavior to it. There are tons of legal things you can do in the privacy of your own home that you do not want others to see.
Ah… how many times have I heard “law abiding, upstanding” citizens utter this crap. It’s the same standard these same citizens apply to a person who refuses to speak with the FBI without their lawyer present.
These citizens need a civics lesson.
Indeed, if I hear a Rethug say that we are fighting for our freedom, I always say “what freedom? You want to tear up the Constitution, and that is what really provides our freedom.”
Because you’re DV. You’re bound to eventually do something illegal. Duh.
It isn’t pretty. Just ask me.
What DD said, and this: today it is almost impossible NOT to be doing something illegal at least several times a day.
But with DD and Pandora (both good Libertarians under their Liberal skin): When did we lose the idea that what we do in our lives that doesn’t hurt anybody else is nobody else’s (most especially Uncle’s) goddamn business?
Because they’re the government, and the government IS NOT your friend. Oh, and “illegal” is all about perspective, dependent upon interpretation of the government /government agent handling the particular circumstance.
With the myriad of laws on the books it’s impossible not to break them sometimes. Hell, with gun laws (even in DE) they’re so convoluted I’m often unsure whether certain things are legal or not.
Jaywalking is illegal and I probably do that a few times a day.
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas Jefferson
If I say that I’m watching your daughter getting undressed on a frequent basis, but she, or anyone for that matter, doesn’t know about it, does that make it ok?
The gov’t shouldn’t be a friend or foe; it should be an applicator of the will of the people.
Because whatever it is that you’re doing may become illegal if ‘they’ know you’re doing it.
not talking about the legality of it…it’s the not knowing part that I’m referring to….you know, since the “gov’t watching” is illegal in the first place.
jerking off isn’t illegal, but do you really want the gov’t knowing if you use the ‘off-hand backwards shuffle’ or if you choke yourself instead?
“The gov’t shouldn’t be a friend or foe; it should be an applicator of the will of the people.”
Not when “the will of the people” is for the government to infringe upon rights.
it never is.
I could elaborate, but if I do Jason will get all pissy about me getting of topic….
good idea.
I was just thinking historically, about how rights are often infringed with “the will of the people” under supposed “good intentions.” They enthusiastically support such infringement under the guise of “public safety” “national security” or the “War on Terror/Drugs etc.”
Just look at what the UK has turned into in recent years. And hell, look at DC. The majority of DC residents (and likely Chicago too) supported the gun ban, despite it being unconstitutional. Hell, look at the Patriot Act.
The way I understand it, the will of the people can only go as far as the Constitution allows. The people calling the shots on how far the Constitution are the Supreme Court justices.
And if they defend the Constitution, they are called activist judges for over-ruling “the will of the people.”
You should also care because watching us, recording us, and storing that data is certainly not free. There are no reasons to spend that kind of money to make pretend that there is some safety in it.
Here’s a thought: If the gov’t uses data provided by us, are we not entitled to compensation for providing this data? Data is a product, right?
Seems I need to clarify: Will of the People on a national level, not local or state, unless it expounds on the rights we already have through the US Constitution.
The amendments are just that, explicit rights expressed by the will of the people implemented through their elected representatives and agreed upon by the SCOTUS.
Because it’s just creepy!!!
Because we don’t want to turn into the UK.
“And if they defend the Constitution, they are called activist judges for over-ruling “the will of the people.”
Sad but true. The anti-abortion folks and others who say “that’s not in the Constitution” are dead wrong. We have the 9th Amendment for a reason. Amendments 1-8 and 10 are not the only rights we have. The role of the SCOTUS is not to rule on (or even consider) the “will of the people” it’s to rule on matters of Constitutionality. If “the people” want to change the Constitution, well we have a process for doing so.
When I hear Justices discuss “evolving standards of decency” (the recent death penalty case) or I hear some liberal justice discuss taking “international law” into account I really wonder about leaving the SCOTUS as the final arbiter.
The amendments are just that, explicit rights expressed by the will of the people implemented through their elected representatives and agreed upon by the SCOTUS.
Not exactly. SCOTUS never had the ability to agree to the amendments. They can only interpret them. They cannot veto or disagree with an amendment.
True, LG. I was trying to be a little too simplistic. A case, writ, whatever would have to be submitted…or something like that.
understood.
thx…I rarely am. 😉
I hate the term ‘activist judges’.
It’s like saying ‘grand slam home run’; it’s redundant.
Agreed. It’s a dumb term. What else are they supposed to do? Their job is to strike down laws that are unconstitutional. If they never did that they wouldn’t be of much use.
Well, I’m one of those who doesn’t really care if the government wants to watch me or listen to me. It doesn’t prevent me from doing whatever I feel like.
I do have to wonder if anyone here participates in those discount programs that track what you purchase. Or the surveys that want to know what you do and how often.
You can argue that those are “voluntary,” but I would say that stores do that stuff regardless of your approval. And, of course, we have cameras in parking lots, at the traffic lights, at the schools, etc. So, no, I’m not worried that the government is going to hear me plotting to blow up the Lincoln Memorial or something.
And activist judges isn’t redundant. Supreme Court justices are supposed to interpret the Constitution. And up until the 1930s, that interpretation, for the most part, was simply based on the wording of a statute and the Constitution itself, coupled with history. But the switch in time to save nine changed what we know as Constitutional interpretation forever. Now, you can find just about anything you choose to in there if you are desperate enough.
Sharon – While I agree with you it should also be noted that being a textualist/originalist leaves you open to just as many logical inconsistencies as does being a “living Constitution” proponent. You can be an originalist, but not an unwavering one (a la Hugo Black)
Sharon you are so correct in #30 with the shopping programs. The biggest scam going now is “Red Box” at the market. I tell my husband that dollar rental is the gateway to much more, but he chooses otherwise…and then I watch the rental…so another enraged American asleep on the couch….
About The Constitution
“I confess that there are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.”
— Benjamin Franklin, 1787
Why would the government be interested in your conversations? What would be so interesting?
I have heard such concerns from a few paranoid types. Perhaps their fears make their rather dull lives seem important to them.
Modern telecommunications no longer relies on twisted pairs from one end of a link to another. There is a lot of mulitiplexing going on and throway cellular phones are available as part of a terrorist command and control network with the public telecomm network providing for the long haul.
How does one monitor a single path on, say, a common T-4 path that is operating at nearly full capacity? How many conversations (most of them of no interest to any agency) will there be at any one time on a single piece of wire?
Anyone care to provide any answers?
How do you pick up the path of interest and ignore the rest?
“It’s like saying ‘grand slam home run’; it’s redundant.”
A grand slam home run, means that the bases are loaded. Clutch hitting for the maximum score.
A grand slam was when you closed the door and censored mike w. for the day. And it is the Big Breakfast at Denny’s.
Always found Hugo Black’s opinions fascinating during my constitutional law classes – a literalist who wasn’t a conservative, so to speak, and a pragmatic inclusionist through incorporation, but not liberal either.
Sharon – judicial findings will appear as an activist finding to the opponents of the ruling. The term, Activist Judges, is just a play on words, like Death Tax for Estate Tax.
Black would be considered an ‘Activist Judge’ due to his insistence that the BoR apply directly to the States through interpretation of the 14th (i think) Amendment.
It’s all perception….well at least that’s my take….
I prefer Moons Over My Hammy….and I had nothing to do with Mike’s ‘time-out’. In fact, I spoke out against it.
Go back to throwing spitters, Sach! 😉
“Indeed, if I hear a Rethug say that we are fighting for our freedom, I always say “what freedom? You want to tear up the Constitution, and that is what really provides our freedom.”
You guys attempt to tear up the parts you don’t like (and reduce their importance) and the Republican’s do the same with the parts they don’t like. Often, the dislike and contempt for certain Constitutional provisions overlaps.
This liberal idea of a “living Constitution” unconstrained by text and historical context however is flat out dangerous because it plants the seed by which to simply “read out” parts of the Constitution you don’t like. If you render a Constitutional provision meaningless via jurisprudence and precedent you don’t have to amend it, it’s already obliterated. (see 10th Amendment, 2nd Amendment in the 9th circuit) It sets precedent that is dangerous to all rights, no matter what party is in power.
“Black would be considered an ‘Activist Judge’ due to his insistence that the BoR apply directly to the States through interpretation of the 14th (i think) Amendment.”
Absolutely, and he was right. I always found Black to be an intriguing justice, and I agreed with him on many points.
leave it to a commenter from FSP to be the one moronic post out of 40…mike is a distand 2nd…but still 2nd
You do miss me, don’t you? (that comment was about me, right?)
Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)
QUOTATION: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Damnit! Guess I should try harder DBB.