The government can see your internet searches on public library computers - hmmmm, well, it IS the government's computer, so I don't think you had a privacy right there to begin with.
If the government is already monitoring a foreign terror suspect's phone calls and you happen to call him or be called by him, the government doesn't have to hang up even though it has no warrant to tap YOUR phone..... They've done this for years and they've always had the right to.
You have to show the bank an ID when you open a checking account and the thresholds for reporting large financial transactions are slightly more inclusive than the ones in anti-money-laundering and anti-tax-evading statutes on the books since the 1960s. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
I can't think of anything else that's actually true that affects our Constitutional rights.
So is this just another made-up attack?
Thought so.
2007-01-26 04:41:47 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Signing statements?
2007-01-26 04:47:29 · answer #1 · answered by I'll Take That One! 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is that some people are just being made aware of these facts now as part of an agenda. More than anything they are just putting legal tools back into service that have been used in the past or enlarging the ones that are still in use. You are right this is nothing new. WWII had far more questionably acts such as profiling and taking land from Japanese- Americans and relocating them to camps.
2007-01-26 04:55:26 · answer #2 · answered by joevette 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
sure is funny that some people think keeping things in public understanding is needed. the fact is FISA COURTS ARE SECRET COURTS and always has been. as someones article says there are rules to what they can let out. FISA does enough harm to our intelligence but the ACLU wanting to publicly disclose findings and processes under FISA will destroy any ability to conduct intelligence operations.
and by the way signing statements have been ruled constitutional and the libs know that. they say it is wrong because he uses them MORE than other presidents. that is idiotic. how can something be OK to do as long as you dont do it more than someone else before you.....
2007-01-26 05:06:01 · answer #3 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Their political opponents said the same of John Adams, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, & FDR as well. They were full of bovine excrement at the time, and the Left still is today.
2007-01-26 04:53:15 · answer #4 · answered by Rick N 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It is made up by a cabal of neo-lib politicians who would sooner ban the reading of the 'real constitution' and simply tell us what it means.
The Catholic Church did the same thing for centuries by banning the reading of the Bible (it was a capital offense).
They couldn't stop the Reformation and Liberal Ursupers won't be able to stop the People from reading, cherishing, and protecting their own constitution!
2007-01-26 04:49:51 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
reading your mail and monitoring the logs of you phone calls both violate the 4th amendment
I love it when people who don't like to hear the truth give me a thumbs down..
2007-01-26 04:53:19 · answer #6 · answered by Nick F 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
You are sadly misinformed. I'll give you one example just for fun;
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/26/washington/26nsa.html?hp&ex=1169874000&en=9044950dc6386d92&ei=5094&partner=homepage
2007-01-26 04:54:13 · answer #7 · answered by ArgleBargleWoogleBoo 3 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Go to htttp://www.infowars.com for your answer.
2007-01-26 04:49:03 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 5⤋