Can we all finally agree that FISA has to go?

[TNHarley]

Up until 2012, the EPA (which I believe is unconstitutional in itself) was dictating to property owners and giving them no recourse in a court. The SCOTUS shot that bullshit down, but until then, it was being abused BIG TIME by the Obama Administration.

I believe it as well.
How surprising, right? Lol

there is nothing unconstitutional about the EPA.... dumbasses.

Ahhh does the EPA fit in under that "ETC" i mentioned earlier?

 

[TNHarley]

There is no power over the environment in article 8. Meaning, the states have that power. All 50 states have environmental protections BTW..
I could see certain legislation from congress about the environment being constitutional. As long as it applies to all states equally. They would probably need some employees to enforce said legislation. Sadly, this isnt all the EPA does. It is blatantly unconstitutional.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

ROFLMAO! I cannot believe that you are that ignorant of American History and apparently have never bothered to read the federalist papers or paid any attention to the debate surrounding the ratification of the Constitution....

Oh, I have no doubt she has never even touched the Federalist Papers.

Hey, Jill. The Federalist Papers were written by James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton.

Go check them out. See if Hamilton is the monarchy supporting, communist dictator you claim him to be.

 

[NightFox]

federal power was never supposed to be limited....

ROFLMAO !! SAY WHAT?

Didn't you claim to be a lawyer? and yet you are apparently unaware that the U.S. Constitution's primary purpose was to LIMIT federal power?

The articles of confederation had limited federal
Government idiota. The whole point of this constitution was a powerful central government. And that whole state’s rights was put to rest with the civil war.

ROFLMAO! I cannot believe that you are that ignorant of American History and apparently have never bothered to read the federalist papers or paid any attention to the debate surrounding the ratification of the Constitution.... powerful in comparison to the Articles of Confederation and unlimited power are not the same thing and the purpose of the Constitution was to EXPLICITLY delineate the powers delegated to the federal government by the states and the people, which is an exercise in LIMITING federal power.

You got your law degree where, snooks?

First off, I'd rather be dead than be a useless waste of air commonly known as a lawyer, secondly where did you get your law degree, North Korea? because it certainly doesn't appear that you got it anywhere in the United States.

If you are a lawyer, I feel sorry for your clients.

in other words, you aren't educated and couldn't get into law school on a bet. no worries. you don't have to feel badly about yourself. and if pretending you know more than me makes you feel better about yourself have at it.

Apparently in addition to not understanding the basis of our legal system you also cannot read English, I didn't say a word about my own education, which based on our respective command of the English language is far beyond yours. What I ACTUALLY wrote is; that I'd rather be dead than to be a lawyer as opposed to your position of lying about being lawyer instead of actually becoming one.

again, your jeffersonian view of government lost. Hamilton's view of government won. the fact that confederates are still pretending that they have the right to discriminate against anyone they want is silliness. the idea that government can't act for the good of it's people is sad and pathetic.

What the heck does Jefferson versus Hamilton have to do with the fact that the purpose of the Constitution was to LIMIT the federal government? Hamilton's view wasn't for a federal government of unlimited power, along with not understanding the purpose of the Constitution you also don't understand the positions of either of these men and the relative differences of their viewpoints regarding the role of federalism.

do you want to call the civil war - the war against northern aggression, too?

Thank you for the walk down irrelevant lane.......

and the power of the federal government isn't all-powerful...

ROFLMAO! you just stated that it was! or does "never supposed to be limited" have a different meaning on the alternative plane of existence that you inhabit than on the one that the rest of humanity occupies?

oh... and you make a lot more money as a lawyer than a winger on a message board.

True, so maybe you should consider giving up your "winger" on USMB career and actually go to law school, then you won't have to just play a lawyer on the Internet you would genuinely have a shot at becoming one.

Congratulations on not only proving your ignorance of the U.S. legal system and U.S. History but also on contradicting your own argument in record time.

Da svidania

"Give all the power to the many, they will oppress the few. Give all the power to the few, they will oppress the many." -- Alexander Hamilton

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Federalist Paper No. 45, written by James Madison, who was a Federalist with Hamilton:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected."

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

More from Madison in Federalist Paper No. 45:

"The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States. If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, are all vested in the existing Congress by the articles of Confederation. The proposed change does not enlarge these powers; it only substitutes a more effectual mode of administering them."

 

[OldLady]

Now that we have an example of how FISA might be abused, do we agree to shit can that POS?

How will surveillance of foreign actors be supervised against abuses without it?

 

[iceberg]

Now that we have an example of how FISA might be abused, do we agree to shit can that POS?

How will surveillance of foreign actors be supervised against abuses without it?

agreed. it needs to be fixed and *if* abused to the level rumors state, changed so that can't happen again. but lets see what is actually happening before we go blow stuff up.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

How will surveillance of foreign actors be supervised against abuses without it?

Here is just ONE problem:

When communication involves a U.S. Person, a full search warrant should be necessary, even when trying to consider the context of a communication.

A compromised FBI can back-door review ALL communications of a U.S. Person who communicates with ANY foreign national, WITHOUT a warrant, under the pretext of understanding the "context."

I would kick that shit out and go back to the 4th Amendment. Any communication that involves a U.S. Person should NEVER be even partly reviewed without a warrant.