Two Constitutional Amendments I Think We Need - Page 2

Mrpariah · #11 (**permalink**) 01-17-2007, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerran";p=&quot

The solution to airline troubles:

Deregulate. Remove screening from federal control. Remove federal support and regulations for airline liability. Currently federal regulations limit airline liability.

I guarantee in 2 years, there will be private screening that is more effective and less intrusive all done by private airlines.

Their incentive would be lawsuits if they miss someone being screened.

Also, remove federal regulations for carrying guns on airlines, let private airlines determine requirements for letting them on.

How about having random security checks from government workers. If the security fails to protect against it then they are fined.

Jake · #12 (**permalink**) 01-23-2007, 12:09 AM

Bad idea - the geneva convention is vague and outside the US control. The US is capable of making it's own laws.

#13 (**permalink**) 03-01-2007, 10:57 AM

It is believed by some political scholars that the Constitution is a war-time doctrine meaning it stands only in times of peace. They also argue that we have been in war since 1990 (or maybe later if you consider the cold war), therefore national security overrides any civil liberties, we, as citizens have. Is this o.k.? In my opinion, at times. Immediatley after 9/11, yes. War in Iraq, no.

The two main sections of the Patriot Act that set defenders of civil liberties off are Section 213 and Section 215. 213 simply adds on to the Espionage Act where under FISA court, a search and seizure can be done without immediate presentation of a warrant. This, though, has been around since the 70s, what 213 does is allow the government an infinite amount of time (so long as FISA seems fit) to wait until administering a warrant. By that time, they could find ANYTHING to prosecute the guy on and away they go. I'm not going in to 215 to far, but it simply is the turning over of anyone records that the government wants.

The scary thing is that these were brought into effect to fight terrorism, yet these Patriot Act laws are being put into action against everyone that is a citizen. Suspected drug runners, child pornographers, etc. Do away with these war time doctrines.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."– Benjamin Franklin

greatamerican128 · #14 (**permalink**) 03-02-2007, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForceoftheTruth";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ---locke---";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForceoftheTruth";p=&quot

I think that, to combat the Bush administration's Big Brother policies, we need two unambiguously worded Constitutional Amendments. First, we need an Amendment banning all government searches and seizures that involve personally touching anyone or their property without their consent without a warrant. Retroactive warrants should be acceptable, but only with the qualification that if a search is made and deemed by due process to be unjustified after the fact, the parties responsible for the search will be held legally accountable. This Amendment should also guarantee the right of all persons not currently serving a sentence for a crime or working for the United States government to communicate about the activities of any American government- federal, state or local.
Second, I propose a Constitutional Amendment stating clearly that all persons captured in war or conflict must be protected by the Geneva Convention if they are soldiers or given American legal due process if they are not. This Amendment should, furthermore, forbid any coercive measures against those in American detention except for those measures strictly necessary for their confinement, their confinement being subject to the Geneva Convention or to American due process with no exceptions. I appreciate all replies. Thank you very much.

So if a muslim man between the ages of 17-40 walks on your plane and is acting funny and reading a book about jihad, gets onto the plane because he was not searched because he said he didnt want to be searched and blws it up killing 250 people you would not be mad or sad , you would be ok with that because it was his right to say no i don't want to be searched.

Of course I would be sad. I just think that the current direction of the government is such that its own "security" measures present a greater danger to us in the long-term than terrorism. When there are no firm lines regarding search and seizure, democracy itself breaks down.

That's pitiful really, I could care less about my privacy from being searched, I have nothing to hide. I don't see why you are so quick to judge the administrations reasons for searching without warrants, torturing terrorists and such, they are trying to keep everyone safe.

Force-of-the-Truth · #15 (**permalink**) 03-02-2007, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greatamerican128";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForceoftheTruth";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ---locke---";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForceoftheTruth";p=&quot

I think that, to combat the Bush administration's Big Brother policies, we need two unambiguously worded Constitutional Amendments. First, we need an Amendment banning all government searches and seizures that involve personally touching anyone or their property without their consent without a warrant. Retroactive warrants should be acceptable, but only with the qualification that if a search is made and deemed by due process to be unjustified after the fact, the parties responsible for the search will be held legally accountable. This Amendment should also guarantee the right of all persons not currently serving a sentence for a crime or working for the United States government to communicate about the activities of any American government- federal, state or local.
Second, I propose a Constitutional Amendment stating clearly that all persons captured in war or conflict must be protected by the Geneva Convention if they are soldiers or given American legal due process if they are not. This Amendment should, furthermore, forbid any coercive measures against those in American detention except for those measures strictly necessary for their confinement, their confinement being subject to the Geneva Convention or to American due process with no exceptions. I appreciate all replies. Thank you very much.

So if a muslim man between the ages of 17-40 walks on your plane and is acting funny and reading a book about jihad, gets onto the plane because he was not searched because he said he didnt want to be searched and blws it up killing 250 people you would not be mad or sad , you would be ok with that because it was his right to say no i don't want to be searched.

Of course I would be sad. I just think that the current direction of the government is such that its own "security" measures present a greater danger to us in the long-term than terrorism. When there are no firm lines regarding search and seizure, democracy itself breaks down.

That's pitiful really, I could care less about my privacy from being searched, I have nothing to hide.

Then heck, let's make a dictatorship. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to be afraid of. I'm sure that in North Korea, for example, "security" measures are very effective. That is precisely the problem there. One can always argue that giving the government a little more power will bring greater security of one sort or another (that is generally the rationale behind any totalitarian state), but then, without the legal boundaries of due process, the government has the power to take away security. In fact, because of its monopoly on violence, it can do this more effectively than anyone else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by greatamerican128";p=&quot

[I don't see why you are so quick to judge the administrations reasons for searching without warrants, torturing terrorists and such, they are trying to keep everyone safe.

Even if such measures did make me physically safer (which itself is questionable), I am not willing to build my physical security on the erosion of democracy or on the brutal treatment of defenseless persons.

Justinian · #16 (**permalink**) 03-07-2007, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greatamerican128";p=&quot

That's pitiful really, I could care less about my privacy from being searched, I have nothing to hide. I don't see why you are so quick to judge the administrations reasons for searching without warrants, torturing terrorists and such, they are trying to keep everyone safe.

Wow. That's exactly what I would have said. Personally, I'd want extreme security that is so strict every now and then people are convicted falsely than a very loose loop-hole-filled security when they don't practically catch anyone. Even if people were wrongly convicted of treason and terrorist connections, they're probably people I wouldn't wish to have in our country any way so I don't really give a (*)(*)(*)(*). It's also quite obvious that if the Federal Government wants to have an effective method of combating domestic terrorism, one of the fundamental things it needs is to have undeterred access to information of its citizens. The one thing I'm worried about is if some idiot gets an upper management job and sells the personal information to companies and such. That's the only thing that really bothers me.

As for your idea of an amendment for "Humane treatment", I personally think that's one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard on this subject in my entire life. That's mind control, plain and simple if it was strictly enforced. No one has the right to tell me how to treat people. I can treat people any way I want with all its consequences as long as I don't break the law. However there are institutions that promote and positively condition people to treat other people better such as Church. The only kind of people I believe that would propose such an idiotic amendment as that are people who have no brain and no balls. That is a sock-it-to-them proposal that would not REALLY benefit the majority but only a small minority of people that would actually endorse it and think it is necessary for them. I'll be (*)(*)(*)(*)ed if I let the Government tell me how to think. That there is cause for revolution.

Questerr · #17 (**permalink**) 03-07-2007, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForceoftheTruth";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ---locke---";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForceoftheTruth";p=&quot

I think that, to combat the Bush administration's Big Brother policies, we need two unambiguously worded Constitutional Amendments. First, we need an Amendment banning all government searches and seizures that involve personally touching anyone or their property without their consent without a warrant. Retroactive warrants should be acceptable, but only with the qualification that if a search is made and deemed by due process to be unjustified after the fact, the parties responsible for the search will be held legally accountable. This Amendment should also guarantee the right of all persons not currently serving a sentence for a crime or working for the United States government to communicate about the activities of any American government- federal, state or local.
Second, I propose a Constitutional Amendment stating clearly that all persons captured in war or conflict must be protected by the Geneva Convention if they are soldiers or given American legal due process if they are not. This Amendment should, furthermore, forbid any coercive measures against those in American detention except for those measures strictly necessary for their confinement, their confinement being subject to the Geneva Convention or to American due process with no exceptions. I appreciate all replies. Thank you very much.

So if a muslim man between the ages of 17-40 walks on your plane and is acting funny and reading a book about jihad, gets onto the plane because he was not searched because he said he didnt want to be searched and blws it up killing 250 people you would not be mad or sad , you would be ok with that because it was his right to say no i don't want to be searched.

Of course I would be sad. I just think that the current direction of the government is such that its own "security" measures present a greater danger to us in the long-term than terrorism. When there are no firm lines regarding search and seizure, democracy itself breaks down.

I know I'm way late commenting on this but: If the suspicious Arab individual deceided not to be searched, DON'T LET THEM ON THE PLANE. I support these ammendments. It says searches without consent, but you could always say that unless you consent to a search you cannot be allowed past a certain point.

greatamerican128 · #18 (**permalink**) 03-07-2007, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Force-of-the-Truth";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by greatamerican128";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForceoftheTruth";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ---locke---";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForceoftheTruth";p=&quot

I think that, to combat the Bush administration's Big Brother policies, we need two unambiguously worded Constitutional Amendments. First, we need an Amendment banning all government searches and seizures that involve personally touching anyone or their property without their consent without a warrant. Retroactive warrants should be acceptable, but only with the qualification that if a search is made and deemed by due process to be unjustified after the fact, the parties responsible for the search will be held legally accountable. This Amendment should also guarantee the right of all persons not currently serving a sentence for a crime or working for the United States government to communicate about the activities of any American government- federal, state or local.
Second, I propose a Constitutional Amendment stating clearly that all persons captured in war or conflict must be protected by the Geneva Convention if they are soldiers or given American legal due process if they are not. This Amendment should, furthermore, forbid any coercive measures against those in American detention except for those measures strictly necessary for their confinement, their confinement being subject to the Geneva Convention or to American due process with no exceptions. I appreciate all replies. Thank you very much.

So if a muslim man between the ages of 17-40 walks on your plane and is acting funny and reading a book about jihad, gets onto the plane because he was not searched because he said he didnt want to be searched and blws it up killing 250 people you would not be mad or sad , you would be ok with that because it was his right to say no i don't want to be searched.

Of course I would be sad. I just think that the current direction of the government is such that its own "security" measures present a greater danger to us in the long-term than terrorism. When there are no firm lines regarding search and seizure, democracy itself breaks down.

That's pitiful really, I could care less about my privacy from being searched, I have nothing to hide.

Then heck, let's make a dictatorship. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to be afraid of. I'm sure that in North Korea, for example, "security" measures are very effective. That is precisely the problem there. One can always argue that giving the government a little more power will bring greater security of one sort or another (that is generally the rationale behind any totalitarian state), but then, without the legal boundaries of due process, the government has the power to take away security. In fact, because of its monopoly on violence, it can do this more effectively than anyone else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by greatamerican128";p=&quot

[I don't see why you are so quick to judge the administrations reasons for searching without warrants, torturing terrorists and such, they are trying to keep everyone safe.

Even if such measures did make me physically safer (which itself is questionable), I am not willing to build my physical security on the erosion of democracy or on the brutal treatment of defenseless persons.

My point is we NEED to search everyone and make no mistakes when it comes to security. Everyone here is afraid of security and privacy which it can be done right when in the hands of a rightous country such as the US. On the other hand North Korea simply uses it as an excuse to invade people's homes.(they don't care if you are a terrorist, only if you disagree with them), the US is more responsible, and that is a fact. I would rather be safe than sorry.

Force-of-the-Truth · #19 (**permalink**) 03-08-2007, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greatamerican128";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Force-of-the-Truth";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by greatamerican128";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForceoftheTruth";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ---locke---";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForceoftheTruth";p=&quot

I think that, to combat the Bush administration's Big Brother policies, we need two unambiguously worded Constitutional Amendments. First, we need an Amendment banning all government searches and seizures that involve personally touching anyone or their property without their consent without a warrant. Retroactive warrants should be acceptable, but only with the qualification that if a search is made and deemed by due process to be unjustified after the fact, the parties responsible for the search will be held legally accountable. This Amendment should also guarantee the right of all persons not currently serving a sentence for a crime or working for the United States government to communicate about the activities of any American government- federal, state or local.
Second, I propose a Constitutional Amendment stating clearly that all persons captured in war or conflict must be protected by the Geneva Convention if they are soldiers or given American legal due process if they are not. This Amendment should, furthermore, forbid any coercive measures against those in American detention except for those measures strictly necessary for their confinement, their confinement being subject to the Geneva Convention or to American due process with no exceptions. I appreciate all replies. Thank you very much.

So if a muslim man between the ages of 17-40 walks on your plane and is acting funny and reading a book about jihad, gets onto the plane because he was not searched because he said he didnt want to be searched and blws it up killing 250 people you would not be mad or sad , you would be ok with that because it was his right to say no i don't want to be searched.

Of course I would be sad. I just think that the current direction of the government is such that its own "security" measures present a greater danger to us in the long-term than terrorism. When there are no firm lines regarding search and seizure, democracy itself breaks down.

That's pitiful really, I could care less about my privacy from being searched, I have nothing to hide.

Then heck, let's make a dictatorship. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to be afraid of. I'm sure that in North Korea, for example, "security" measures are very effective. That is precisely the problem there. One can always argue that giving the government a little more power will bring greater security of one sort or another (that is generally the rationale behind any totalitarian state), but then, without the legal boundaries of due process, the government has the power to take away security. In fact, because of its monopoly on violence, it can do this more effectively than anyone else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by greatamerican128";p=&quot

[I don't see why you are so quick to judge the administrations reasons for searching without warrants, torturing terrorists and such, they are trying to keep everyone safe.

Even if such measures did make me physically safer (which itself is questionable), I am not willing to build my physical security on the erosion of democracy or on the brutal treatment of defenseless persons.

My point is we NEED to search everyone and make no mistakes when it comes to security. Everyone here is afraid of security and privacy which it can be done right when in the hands of a rightous country such as the US. On the other hand North Korea simply uses it as an excuse to invade people's homes.(they don't care if you are a terrorist, only if you disagree with them), the US is more responsible, and that is a fact. I would rather be safe than sorry.

American, few in any nation believe that security measures will be misused until they are misused. Human nature throughout the world is constant. Give any government officials carte blanche and they will misuse their power. The problem is the lack of absolute boundaries that the government may not cross. Without such lines, state tyranny breaks down democracy. Incidentally, privately owned airlines may take whatever security measures they see fit (and they have every incentive to keep their passengers safe). I would place these restrictions only on what the government, having the unique coercive powers of the military and the police, may do.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode