It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Paul on Edward Snowden’s indictment

page: 8
37
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 





vthey do not specify specific individuals with probable cause indicating exactly what can be taken.





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.


My friend, where in the 4th amendment do you see a specific person must named and that this seizure includes things held by a third party? What if they simply say "all persons?" What if they say that a 3rd party has no 4th amendment rights to information regarding customers. This is the argument the ACLU will have to argue, that the government improperly seized information regarding too many. I hope that you are right, but we need to remember that the Founding Fathers had no way to foresee the current civilization. They were concerned with personal rights, rights of search and seizure of personal property, giving those self same Rights to a third party, who provides a service to the people is a big step. You could argue that the people give up those rights when using a third party. I am no legal scholar but it would seem a tough road to hoe.




posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawg61
 


Link please.
next



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by flyswatter
 



The Supreme Court disagrees

they don't have the power to disagree. illegal laws need not be followed, nor illegal rulings.


Again, you are wrong, and you will continue to be wrong on this matter. The Supreme Court is the ONLY group whose interpretation of the Constitution matters, as they are the ones charged specifically with doing just that. Your whole idea of US Constitutional rights being extended to foreigners overseas is an absolute fantasy and has zero legal basis which to stand on. As soon as you can show me even a SINGLE instance that says US Constitutional rights have ever been extended to foreigners overseas, I will gladly admit I am wrong on the matter. But you cant, because it hasnt happened!



new topics
 
37
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join