It Took Humanity Thousands of Years to Produce the U.S. Constitution --

[snot]

And now, our Congress, including Obama, plan to eviscerate it with the FISA bill/amendment.

How long do you think it will take for humanity to get these rights back?

[skooooo]

1. Oh geeze give it a rest already.

These posts are getting really old.

[snot]

6. Which ones?

[dbonds]

2. Thats a bit over the top statement.

Well a lot over the top.

[snot]

4. Pls specify in what regard.

[HeresyLives]

3. Humanity??

Or just Americans?

[snot]

5. You think Americans invented it all alone?

Even I know more history than that.

[HeresyLives]

7. My point, exactly.

The rest of us still have rights.

The Magna Carta was 1215 CE.

[Common Sense Party]

8. We all still have rights. Our rights predate either the Constitution

or the Magna Carta.

Rights don't come from a piece of paper.

[HeresyLives]

9. Not enforceable

if they are not written down and ratified by law.

The Magna Carta was the first such recognized document in western law.

[Oregone]

13. Law does not make rights enforceable

Laws change, and rights evolve (via restriction and expansion). The only true method to determine if a right is enforceable is if the populace is willing to go to war over such a right, and in such a case, if it is more cost efficient for the government to grant such right vs wage the war.

[snot]

10. If you want to pick nits, in my view, they're all consensual figments --

they just happen to be the best (most constructive over the longest-term) we've come up with so far, and a lot better than the trash now being foisted on us.

I don't quite understand the negativity my OP seems to have evoked. Which was prompted because I can't believe Obama's about to support this evisceration (I just gave him money -- again -- two days ago, b.t.w.), and I can't believe that's evoking so little comment here on DU.

[JDPriestly]

11. I agree with you. I will vote for Obama, but his willingness to

vote for telecom immunity is shameful.

[snot]

12. thank you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. Maybe it was your implication that the US is the only country in the world that recognised rights

if you think that 'humanity' has lost them, and needs to get them back again, because of one bill in the US.

[snot]

19. ok, i'm no historian,

but i do have the general impression that the U.S. Constitution resulted from one of the most thorough and effective efforts ever to research and succinctly articulate some fundamental human rights.

i'm not trying to be U.S.-chauvinistic; i'm mostly just very worried that the fact that things have gotten this dire does not bode well for getting our rights restored quickly.

[scheming daemons]

14. LOL.... another hole is being made in a document that looks like swiss cheese already....

You're like a prom queen who is upset about getting a little ketchup spilled on her dress after it has already had motor oil poured on it.



The Constitution is not being "eviscerated" tomorrow. The 4th amendment is getting a major blow..... But it already has been usurped many times over the years.


The FISA bill is only a little insult to injury.

[JDPriestly]

15. No. This is the worst thing yet.

This destroys not only the Fourth Amendment but what vestige is left of separation of powers. In fact, for me, it is more about separation of powers than FISA. I am just hoping that the courts stand up for themselves and tell both Congress and the president that these cases are in the jurisdiction of the courts and neither Congress nor the president can stop the courts from exercising their jurisdiction. That is what courts are for. Courts, we often forget, are the THIRD CO-EQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. CONGRESS CANNOT JUST TELL THE COURTS -- THIS CASE ISN'T YOURS ANYMORE. That is my last hope. Otherwise we are headed for a monarchy, because Congress is relinquishing its co-equal status with the president (in a number of ways) and the president thinks he has already got a crown on his head. I am very depressed tonight. This is a very sad moment in our history.

I am just reading a book on Marshall and Jefferson. This issue of separation of powers is the foundation of our democracy. Without it, we have no self-government. The Federalist Papers are very clear on that point.

And where are all those Federalists in the Republican Party now when we need them? They certainly had a lot to say about Clinton's lie in a deposition. Where are these self-styled defenders of the Constitution and federalism?

[Breeze54]

17. Once it's Gone it's Gone. ....

Keep laughing; dumb bunny... it's better than crying.

[TexasObserver]

18. Why don't you explain which provision of the Constitution the proposed FISA amendment eviscerates?

Do you understand the difference between a civil action and a criminal action?

Do you understand the difference between an action by government and an action by a privately owned entity?

Do you understand that the telecom immunity provision, as annoying and undeserved as it is, does not violate the fourth amendment? If the fourth amendment has been violated by the government, and I think it has, it is the government action which the fourth prohibits. The actions of the telecoms were at the behest of the government, so the actions of the telecoms were in fact the actions of an agent of the government. The telecoms were acting as agents of the government, but it's the government, not the telecoms, which violated the fourth amendment. The fourth prohibits government, not private, actions.

In summary, the remedy of pursuing those in government who violated the fourth amendment by obtaining the cooperation of the telecoms remains viable. The telecom immunity bill, as much as I dislike it, only shields telecoms from CIVIL liability suits by their customers. It does not absolve anyone from violations of the fourth amendment. Criminal prosecutions can still follow, assuming anyone in our new Justice department in 2009 wants to pursue them.

[snot]

20. Yes:

Amendment IV: Search and arrest warrants
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.

Our government has violated out constitutional rights, and flagrantly.

The telecoms abetted it, and knowingly. They should be liable. We just granted them a free pass.

I don't think you and I disagree. Pardon if I'm not splitting the hairs the way they should be split.

I'm not sure how much importance we should place on the distinction betw. gov't and private corps. -- the latter seem to rule the former; maybe that's one of the few areas in which our Constitution could stand improvement.

I'm surprised that my O.P. has elicited such hostility here.

[Occam Bandage]

21. So, going forward, what language in the bill conflicts? And if it conflicts so egregiously,

why wouldn't it simply be challenged and thrown out in courts?

[snot]

23. you place confidence in the courts?

i retain hope they will throw it out; but i'm by no means confident given that we've allowed repubs to control court appts. for decades.

[Occam Bandage]

26. So you don't know, then. Figures.

[Posteritatis]

22. The US constitution's borked, so the other 95% of us have fallen into darkness?

Please.

[snot]

24. sorry, i don't understand your comment.

are you saying that 95% of the people on this planet enjoy more fully-protected rights?

I never claimed the US was the only country to recognize fundamental human rights.

On the other hand, it did a relatively good job, relatively early.

I'm not trying to be chauvinistic about it, just upset that it's over and worried about whether it will be restored in my or our children's lifetimes in the US.

I still don't understand the hostility this thread is arousing.

[snot]

25. ok, sorry, i shd have said, how long bef. US citizens get these rights back.

i misspoke.

any answers?