The Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision but, that's not good enough for Obama

You would think he could take a hint after the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision (for the first time in, like, forever) decided that a search warrant is needed to put a GPS tracker on a vehicle but, Noooo, that isn't good enough for the Obama administration.

Obama Administration Argues No Warrant Required for GPS Tracking of Citizens

The federal government informed an appeals court on Thursday that it has the right and the power to place GPS tracking devices on the privately owned vehicles of citizens without obtaining a warrant. This is in open rebellion to a Supreme Court decision from January that held that such warrantless installation of tracking devices on cars was unconstitutional.

In a case being heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Obama administration argued that since the Supreme Court’s ruling didn’t specifically mandate the obtaining of a search warrant in all situations, then the justices intended to leave a loophole open — a loophole large enough to mount a tracking device.

In the Jones case, the Supreme Court unanimously held that law enforcement violated the Fourth Amendment by conducting “unreasonable searches and seizures” by installing a GPS tracking device to a suspect’s car without first obtaining a probable-cause warrant.

While such a statement seems clear enough, the confusion arises from the court’s pronouncement of the ruling that led to the decision. For example, writing for the majority (the opinions on the legal rationale for the ruling were split 5-4), Justice Antonin Scalia declared that the constitutional privation perpetrated by the police was the unwarranted attachment of the tracking device onto the property of a citizen. However, the minority opinion, penned by Justice Samuel Alito, explained that it was the violation of the suspect’s “reasonable expectation of privacy” that was the principal constitutional issue in the matter.

In the end, neither the majority nor the minority addressed a key argument forwarded by the Justice Department: GPS tracking, the feds argued, is just that and is not a search in the traditional sense whatsoever, therefore no warrant should be required. That is to say, police could accomplish the same end through another means — a means that doesn’t require a warrant (physical surveillance, for example) — therefore, a warrant need not be obtained before attaching a GPS device to the car of a suspect.

The New American


I guess it all hinges on what your definition of "is" is.

Talk about using some weaselly lawyer speak trying to wrangle their way around the clear ruling by the Supreme Court to get their way to further intrude upon the privacy of American citizens.

You would think that search warrants were hard to get from all the fuss they are making over this. I guess even Federal law enforcement is allergic to paperwork. Too bad; they should prove they need to use this tactic to a judge before they go around sticking those things on everybody's vehicles, fishing for something to use against us.

This is all assuming that the authorities will even care if they are allowed to or not. The current "dragnet" is so absurd and terrifyingly large, that it has become it's own entity in the world. It will now govern itself and do as it sees fit, because why not.. is there a more powerful, more absurd, much larger terrifying phenomena that's going to stop it? No.

I do admire them for playing "make-believe, not-for-keepsies" games in court though.. it is at least imaginative and interesting.

reply to post by SyphonX


I wish I could scream to you how wrong you are...

I cannot.

I would be lying.

And the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the most liberal in the country, is just the place to get it done.

In the end, neither the majority nor the minority addressed a key argument forwarded by the Justice Department: GPS tracking, the feds argued, is just that and is not a search in the traditional sense whatsoever, therefore no warrant should be required.

Legal speak which is evil incarnate the logic is they aren't searching they are placing a tracking device so that no warrant is necessary.

Government approved fascism.

The Scotus said no Government says YES WE CAN so what makes anyone think Obama Care will be any different?

reply to post by FortAnthem


No matter, the cars are being made with these items as standard operating equipment. All the gubbermint needs to do is tune in.

Heavy sigh...

What to say?

Boneheads...

no wait...

Evil boneheads.

first of all, a gps tracker doesn't tell you who is driving the car, so it is unreliable as evidence.

i also wonder what would happen if i clandestinely installed a gps tracker on obamas armored limo, since he see's nothing wrong with that.

This is why the system is flawed.

Here is clear evidence of an administration that is over stepping its bounds.
Yet all we can do is write about it on a website.

Can we do more?

The question is...should we do more.

reply to post by havok


The overstepping has been going on for far too long. We the people better do something, it is now so obvious that the checks and balances no longer matter. The constitution is treated like something treasonous.

reply to post by havok

Can we do more?

Yes we can.

The question is...should we do more.

Of course we should. If not, we have no right to complain about the federal government usurping our rights. If the violation of rights is egregious enough to complain about, it is serious enough to file a civil rights complaint seeking redress in federal court. When enough citizens use this tactic I believe we can reverse the feds current trend of trampling on our rights.

I wonder if this is a dry run for when the Court hands down its decision on Obamacare?

He may be testing the waters for an open act of defiance against the court in case they decide against his health care legislation. The Supreme Court is one of the last checks left in the system, if Obama can find a way to ignore their decisions and the public doesn't react too strongly, he could render them irrelevant, just like the Constitution.

He did promise to fundamentally change Amerika after all...

The last "check" in the system is those who inherently hold all the political power; sadly, many of the "people" have so far abdicated such power that they acquiesce to whatever the Federal Government decrees.

Another possibility is that Obama is sending a warning to the court that he will do whatever he wants and continue to implement Obamacare even if they decide the whole thing is unconstitutional. He's warning them that he will make them irrelevant if they dare to cross him.

"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"

Wiki


He's trying to have a Jacksonian moment.


Obama can't hold a candle to Andrew Jackson. :shk:

Im going to start using my mapsco again.

..And a compass.

Originally posted by havok
This is why the system is flawed.

Here is clear evidence of an administration that is over stepping its bounds.
Yet all we can do is write about it on a website.

Can we do more?

The question is...should we do more.

Technically congress should impeach him for such blatant violations of the constitution however they are all in bed together and it won't happen. Ain't democligarchy great...

We need a new american Magna Carta.

Originally posted by abe froman
We need a new american Magna Carta.

Thanks Abe, but would a return to the Common Law
be practical at this point? Things are far enough south
now that I hold no hope for repair. I mean, when DOJ
won't even enforce what's on the books now (because
it would mean a .308 through the collective foot) where
do we go??
And it was said well by an absent sage-- with a de facto
constitution and a perpetual state of emergency (how
wonderful for them) causing about 300,000 federal statutes
with about half as many criminal penalties attached; the
book burning ceremony would immolate the D of C-- at LEAST.
It's bedtime now, and with this and a couple of other threads
rumbling in my duodenum, the nightmares might parallel a
chocolate cream / cat fur pizza with extra bacon (HEY Domo, Bud!!)

reply to post by FortAnthem


So what would happen if a person walked outside and found the feds working on their car without a warrant?

According to the law they would have every right to use [non-lethal] force to protect their private property!

A few caps in the knee wont kill a man... there's my god damn loop hole in the law.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by FortAnthem

 

So what would happen if a person walked outside and found the feds working on their car without a warrant?

According to the law they would have every right to use [non-lethal] force to protect their private property!

A few caps in the knee wont kill a man... there's my god damn loop hole in the law.

edit on 5-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

If I found someone intending to steal my property...it's a good thing I have Texas law to back me up. Not to mention that if you pull your weapon, and you aim for anything other than center mass, you could actually be imprisoned for reckless endangerment.

/TOA