The NSA can't capture everything that crosses the Internet—but doesn't need to.
Amongst very nerdy constitutional law circles, the Third Amendment is practically a joke. It's never been the primary basis of a Supreme Court decision, and it only turns up rarely in legal cases. The reality is that the federal government isn't going to be sending American soldiers to individual homes anytime soon. Even The Onion tackled the issue in 2007: "Third Amendment Rights Group Celebrates Another Successful Year."
But in a recent op-ed in the Los Angeles Times , one California state lawmaker, Assemblyman Mike Gatto, has proposed a novel legal theory that could allow this amendment to fuel a major legal challenge to the American surveillance state:
Let's examine whether a case may be made. The National Security Agency is part of the Department of Defense and therefore of our nation's military. By law, the NSA director must be a commissioned military officer, and per its mission statement, the NSA gathers information for military purposes. That's strong evidence that NSA personnel would qualify as soldiers under the 3rd Amendment.
And why did the framers prohibit the government lodging soldiers in private homes? Besides a general distaste for standing armies, quartering was costly for homeowners; it was also an annoyance that completely extinguished a family's sense of privacy and made them feel violated. Sound familiar?
Just like many cases before him, Elliott Schuchardt could not prove standing.
"I think they need to start taking other tools from the toolbox," Gatto told Ars. "It's definitely a long shot argument and is definitely one that has certain deficiencies, but what got me going on that line of reasoning is that when it has been cited in privacy cases it's been big landmark privacy cases—you get a sense that our Founding Fathers valued privacy. There's a clear message that privacy is something."
(Score: 4, Insightful) by soylentsandor on Monday November 30 2015, @01:05PM
The text [wikipedia.org] (for those foreigners who, like me, have no idea):
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Seems like a long shot to me. And even if it turns out to hold, wouldn't it be quite straightforward to circumvent by severing the tie to the military?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 30 2015, @02:29PM
Yeah, from my understanding of "quartered" that means you can't have soldiers stay in a house without consent of the house-owner (unless there's some extra law). And the reason for this amendment seems more like it's your house, you can't be forced to let soldiers stay in it. It's a huge stretch.
The fourth amendment seems in my unlearned reading far more relevant and applicable:
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.
And even then it's a stretch to prevent spying of stuff outside your persons, houses, perhaps you could say "effects" includes your webmail mailboxes, but it's a stretch to say it includes your phone calls and emails.
If the constitution and its amendments doesn't apply to protect you against spying, in _theory_ you bunch could always add another amendment that applies. In practice you need enough politicians and voters who care about this issue enough.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 30 2015, @04:21PM
or just change the technology such that it resides in your house, so p2p services would be protected
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday November 30 2015, @07:08PM
the reason for this amendment seems more like it's your house,
The reason for the amendment was that under British rule is was common for the British Army to quarter solders in houses and barns of the populace, (and incidentally to make the homeowner feed them). This served two purposes, one they kept eyes and ears on the local population, and two, the expense of building barracks or the discomfort of camping in the fields was avoided.
The British supply lines from England were long and slow. The army arrived in north america with little more than they could carry on their backs. This practice was pretty standard in those days. An "occupying army" had a more immediate definition back then.
Even George Washington's Continental Army practiced this to a much smaller degree, usually taking over an entire farm house for a headquarters, and sending the family to the barn or to neighbors.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 01 2015, @04:21AM
>Even George Washington's Continental Army practiced this to a much smaller degree, usually taking over an entire farm house for a headquarters, and sending the family to the barn or to neighbors.
Why didn't they fight back and kill him and his troops?
Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Monday November 30 2015, @07:14PM
the reason for this amendment seems more like it's your house,
Exactly. If the 4th amendment that is spot on to the situation at hand can be ignored by the courts, then there is not even a slim chance that something so tangential as as the third amendment will apply.
.
Betteridge's law of headlines applies here.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Monday November 30 2015, @09:39PM
Bullshit
It's some intellectual disingenuity to say the least to push this idea. The 4th protects *everything*, no exceptions, and no intellectual "acrobatics" to attempt to re-define our communications to be unprotected succeed in sullying the Unites States Constitution.
The real challenge is that it was written for lawyers apparently, which really means, they can argue it to death forever. You might a strict constructionist, like Scalia is supposedly, "A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means." Sounds pretty damn good, except that Scalia has his head up his ass as for what is "reasonable".
Persons - Soldier's cannot just rough you up, go through your pockets, and start searching for hidden papers, or effects. Should be pretty familiar. This also includes surveillance of a person, both video and audio, while they're occupying their houses.
Houses - Where you live, and your papers and effects are most likely held. Essentially, your containers are as protected as the contents.
Papers - This was explicit, and it meant, information. Our founding fathers didn't have all that many ways to communicate, and pen and paper were predominately the method of communication in the known world. This would have even covered hieroglyphs, or whatever creative ways Franklin may have had to communicate :)
Effects - Personal property, that is not not specifically paper. I can imagine that had a lot to do with hidden information and unlawful seizures of property. Much like how the USA uses the War on Drugs to seize private property without recourse. This was our founding fathers hedging their bets. Effects is supposed to cover what they couldn't think of, and couldn't imagine. Not even Franklin.
against unreasonable searches and seizures - The search and/or seizure must simply be reasonable, not necessarily correct. There must be due process in the violation of the citizen's rights, where it is reasonable.
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. - Due process, due process, DUE PROCESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This most explicitly disallows "fishing expeditions" which entirely, and completely accurately, describes the current mass surveillance apparatus. In fact, that is a basis for the government's defense. Your privacy wasn't actually violated, because a physical person never actually reviewed the information. In other words, the search and seizure doesn't actually become a search and seizure until human eyeballs have seen it.
The 4th requires due process, by an actual living and breathing individual, specifically in the Judicial branch to authorize violations of a citizen's rights because that judicial officer in their professional capacities felt it was reasonable to do so. The NSA, CIA, or FBI have absolutely no legal standing whatsoever to promulgate *anything* in regards to reasonableness. Only the judicial branch does, and it has been bypassed completely in favor of electronic algorithms, mass information capture, and sophisticated predictive analysis, by the aforementioned three agencies "protecting" us.
Our founding fathers wished our communications and records thereof , to be legally private from government, unless there was a specifically compelling reason in the public's interest to make an exception. It's not controversial, and just plain obvious given the environment at the time, that our founding fathers wished for privacy being the rebels that they were. Nobody reasonably expects that we could resurrect a founding father, explain email to him, and have him agree with the powers that be that his emails should be able to be read by the king. I'd like to see the look on his face.
Yes, absolutely, and unequivocally, phone calls and emails are in effect written records of a conversation (I can make them 1's and 0's on paper), and very much protected by the spirit and intent of the 4th amendment. The attempt to redefine what a phone call is, or what an email is, to confuse us and make us forget that they are essentially our "effects in motion", is bullshit. It makes no difference how the communication was effected, we all expect privacy in our communications, and our founding fathers damn well tried to make it permanent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 01 2015, @04:12PM
awesome stuff there!
but there is some physical technicality that should be taken into consideration. making laws for "meanings" is just not as solid as if making laws that originate in the real physical world.
so, email and phone calls are in actual fact COPIES. your personal "letter" and "documents" are originals. these could not be searched.
stuff going thru physical wires (electrons on copper) or thru pipes (light in phiber optics) is also not the same as free-air electromagnetic waves.
we can assume that the first is like letter in an envelope whilst the second is rather like a postcard ... look at the picture, turn it around and ... read it.
ofc it is possible to invent your own language or symbols or both and write a "open" postcard that cannot be understood.
anyways, for mobile phone communication or anything in free-air, it is the postcard case and fair game to "eavesdrop" on:
"close your ears john. i'm going to scream something secret across the yard to the neighbor." ^_^
as for locatin' data (where is the mobile phone and its user/operator) this should be a marketing gimmick by the mobile-network operator:"we protect your location data" but if it is NOT promised by the mobile-network operator then people should really start caring about how technology works, because it is not possible to NOT generate and NOT USE this data if a mobile-network needs to work in the real physical world... thus this data/info is available. thus if you DON'T want to be tracked, or meta data leeched, then then DON'T use a mobile phone ... trying to force a privacy law onto a technology that relies on a free space is like above: "but the laws says that john needs to hold his hands to his ears if i shout to the neighbour".
for wired communication ..well ... that should probably be like the letter in an envelope and this is protected by some postal code/law?
as for soldiers airBnB-ing your house, well i guess this would be the same as the FBI infecting your computer with spyware. for this case i think this 3rd American thing could be used. something from them comes into your house/computer. or remotely turning on a feature on YOUR device that generates data that then leaves your device without your consent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @12:43AM
making laws for "meanings" is just not as solid as if making laws that originate in the real physical world.
Well, too bad. You can't separate human laws from meanings.
so, email and phone calls are in actual fact COPIES.
Irrelevant. They're still collecting and/or looking at the information. This logic only enables mass surveillance in the 21st century, where copying is a necessity. What's important is the information itself, not that it's a copy.
because it is not possible to NOT generate and NOT USE this data if a mobile-network needs to work in the real physical world... thus this data/info is available.
But it IS possible for the GOVERNMENT to NOT collect the information. Just because companies have some information for some period of time doesn't mean the government must necessarily also be able to get it. Neither should the government force companies to store it so the government can use it later; that is also unconstitutional mass surveillance, because the companies become a de facto part of the government in that situation once the government forces them to do something such as that.
thus if you DON'T want to be tracked, or meta data leeched, then then DON'T use a mobile phone ... trying to force a privacy law onto a technology that relies on a free space is like above: "but the laws says that john needs to hold his hands to his ears if i shout to the neighbour".
Total naive bullshit. You might as well tell people to move to Mars. We shouldn't have to cease using all forms of technology simply because government thugs insist on spying on our communications. I don't want to "force privacy law" onto a technology; I want the government to respect the constitution. There is a difference, because the latter simply means the government must use technology in a way that doesn't violate our rights. It's like saying that expecting others not to murder innocent people with a gun is silly because guns are made for murder. The blame falls squarely on the person or people who used the technology in an inappropriate way, and that is what we must tackle. Ban certain usages of the technology (in this case, for the government), but don't ban the technology itself.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 30 2015, @08:14PM
Could any part of the constitution be used to fight the surveillance state when they're already ignoring numerous parts of it?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mhajicek on Tuesday December 01 2015, @01:43AM
Not when supporting the constitution brands you as an extremist.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 30 2015, @01:15PM
Not so familiar with the US constitution (European here), I had to look up what this amendment was (would have been nice is there was a small line about it in the post).
Let's look it up: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
IANAL, but here are a few things here that lawyers/judges could be taking into consideration for using this against NSA:
1) The use of the word "quartering". I guess it does mean that a soldier has to be physically present. Also, monitoring data is often also not performed within the "house", but based on data transmitting from the house. I think the only way that could be used to fight the NSA is when the NSA breaks into a house and breaks into the computer from within the house.
2) The part "nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." The US is in constant state of war (war on terrorism, war on drugs... just to name a few) and this part seems to allow exclusions if prescribed by law. I would not be surprised if there is already some law/act that give the NSA the rights for doing the things it already does, invalidating this whole amendment.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Gearloose on Monday November 30 2015, @01:41PM
"War on terrorism" and "war on drugs" are marketing terms, not real wars. I believe a declaration of war has to be formally approved by Congress. I also believe this hasn't happened since WWII.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday November 30 2015, @02:01PM
They both have something in common with "real" wars though: The government kills people in order to fight them.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bziman on Monday November 30 2015, @02:29PM
Yeah except our government isn't actually fighting a war. If there was actually a war, we would have won by now because of our vast overwhelming military might. But the goal isn't to win. It's to maintain a constant state of fear in which unlimited amounts of money can be extracted from the people and transferred directly to the ruling class via the military industrial complex.
The constitution is, now, for all intents and purposes, ignored when it is in conflict with the above goal.
NSA spying isn't so much about gathering intelligence (obviously, since targeted spying would be more effective). Rather it is about spending billions on the program. 100% of money spent on equipment goes to big business and I'd guess 75% of money spent on staff from big contractors goes straight to the bottom line.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday November 30 2015, @03:07PM
The problem in both cases are:
1. While the US has overwhelming military might, it shows absolutely no sign of having overwhelming military intelligence. In other words, they can blow up anything they want or shoot anyone they want, but have a nasty habit of blowing up the wrong things and shooting the wrong people. In the War on Terror, the victims are random Yemenis, Pakistanis, and so forth that happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. In the War on Drugs, the victims are random black people. In both cases, those intelligence failures anger the people that the war is theoretically trying to win over.
2. Wars cannot be won with military might alone. In order to maintain control over a population in the long run, you have to be offering a better alternative than your opponents (e.g. Charles de Gaulle rather than Vichy France). That's why both Daesh and Sinoloa have as much success as they do - they both appeal to people who were thoroughly mistreated by the people Daesh and Sinoloa are actively fighting.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 30 2015, @06:10PM
While the US has overwhelming military might, it shows absolutely no sign of having overwhelming military intelligence. In other words, they can blow up anything they want or shoot anyone they want, but have a nasty habit of blowing up the wrong things and shooting the wrong people.
They're actually getting a fair bit of what they want, albeit with some side effects. But I don't think they really care.
Despite what you assume, they had enough military intelligence to know what they were doing and what would happen- they actually planned and predicted much of it. The US Gov wanted to destroy Syria and they expected something like ISIS to happen, down to the ISIS declaring an Islamic State:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/newly-declassified-u-s-government-documents-the-west-supported-the-creation-of-isis.html [washingtonsblog.com]
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq [theguardian.com]
A revealing light on how we got here has now been shone by a recently declassified secret US intelligence report, written in August 2012, which uncannily predicts – and effectively welcomes – the prospect of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria and an al-Qaida-controlled Islamic state in Syria and Iraq. In stark contrast to western claims at the time, the Defense Intelligence Agency document identifies al-Qaida in Iraq (which became Isis) and fellow Salafists as the “major forces driving the insurgency in Syria” – and states that “western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey” were supporting the opposition’s efforts to take control of eastern Syria.
Raising the “possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality”, the Pentagon report goes on, “this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)”.
And they were taking action LONG BEFORE ISIS got big:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/08/u-s-started-backing-syrian-opposition-years-before-the-uprising-started.html [washingtonsblog.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 [nytimes.com]
Even in Libya the US was allied to the rebels who themselves were allied with or included the Al Qaeda: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html [telegraph.co.uk]
They arm and support the rebels and fake ignorance and surprise when their weapons fall into Jihadi hands. Only the stupid and ignorant believe such bullshit that they weren't aware the rebels included jihadis like the Al Qaeda.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/americas-secret-plan-to-arm-libyas-rebels-2234227.html [independent.co.uk]
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html [nytimes.com]
The USA plays with fire to destroy stuff and pretends to be innocent when people get hurt. Or worse they pretend to be the victims. Iraq, Syria, Libya etc the US is responsible for much of the mess. I'm not denying that fire burns, nor am I denying the ISIS are evil. Just pointing out who has been starting many of the fires, since many including you don't seem to be aware of what is really happening.
As to why they are doing all of this. I'm not sure. It is one way to transfer money from US taxpayers to feed the US war machine, but is that it?
Perhaps I missed out the reason somewhere. But the US Government is not my government, if it's your government you should pay even more attention to what it's really doing and don't be fooled into thinking they're that stupid and incompetent and ignore the evidence that they really are that evil. Go check out the evidence yourself. Some of the writers may hype or spin stuff but there's enough evidence. Just start with those links, search for similar stuff and you can find more and more even from mainstream media itself (often with a different spin).
(Score: 2, Informative) by chrysosphinx on Monday November 30 2015, @01:15PM
No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 30 2015, @04:52PM
echo Slashdolt Logic: "18 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." | sed s/Slashdolt/Soylentnews/ | sed s/jokes/hints/ | sed /sha.*ers/Betteriges law/ | sed s/Funny/Informative
(Score: 5, Insightful) by khallow on Monday November 30 2015, @01:22PM
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 30 2015, @02:46PM
It took a few decades, but they came around to accepting a tenuous reinterpretation of the Second Amendment.
However, this one sounds pretty silly.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday November 30 2015, @07:31PM
It took a few decades, but they came around to accepting a tenuous reinterpretation of the Second Amendment.
Not really. Lower courts have been all over the place on interpreting the Second Amendment, but that confusion hasn't extended to the Supreme Court.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 30 2015, @11:42PM
No, historical revisionism [pace.edu] started in the 70's when the NRA started pushing and supporting a legal reinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The courts were very clear [huffingtonpost.com] until then [ursinus.edu], even considering it a "dead" amendment in that there was nothing really to interpret about it.
For 200 years the courts were consistent in their interpretation. It wasn't until the NRA dumped their money and influence into the ring where suddenly the interpretation became "unclear".
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday December 01 2015, @01:48AM
So nothing happened in 1934 then I take it.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday December 01 2015, @03:11AM
No, historical revisionism started in the 70's when the NRA started pushing and supporting a legal reinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
First, this assertion ignores two important things. First, that the Second Amendment supports individual rights by the explicit wording of the amendment. Second, that actual attempts to restrict gun ownership in the US at the federal level didn't start [washingtonpost.com] until 1934. There's not much point to asserting that law was interpreted in one way only when that interpretation didn't even matter for more than a century.
purred by the bloody “Tommy gun” era ushered in by Al Capone, John Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson, Pretty Boy Floyd, and Bonnie and Clyde, seen at right, President Franklin D. Roosevelt mounts a “New Deal for Crime.” One part of it is the National Firearms Act of 1934, the first federal gun-control law, which levies a restrictive $200 tax on the manufacture or sale of machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. All sales were to be recorded in a national registry.
That also is the same year that the NRA started [nad.org] its lobbying efforts on Second Amendment issues in response to this law and other incursions of the time on the Second Amendment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 30 2015, @11:46PM
Forgot this one [osu.edu], which is probably the more succinct of the group, and it came out just before the Supreme Court took up the Heller case.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by wisnoskij on Monday November 30 2015, @01:22PM
The surveillance state is already known to be illegal and unconstitutional. But the government is above the law, and the only opinion anyone has anymore about the constitution is that it is wrong and should be ignored.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 30 2015, @02:45PM
I'm not too sure of the procedures for taking office in the US but suspect "The Government" consists of people who have sworn an oath to uphold the constitution. The Senate opens with a recital of the pledge of allegiance doesn't it? The republic does not exist without the constitution. Then again the pledge of allegiance also contains references to some archaic sky fairy, so any person(s) taking that text seriously are mentally ill.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 30 2015, @01:40PM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday November 30 2015, @04:22PM
How exactly are you proposing to do that?
Let's say you get your group of plucky rebels together in some place that nobody has ever heard of. You and your crew start to take things over, fighting off the police sent to stop you with your AR-15s. The problem with the "Let's go Second-Amendment on them" argument is that most plans stop at this stage. The problem is that that isn't the end of the story.
In response to your armed resistance against lawful authority, the cops call in SWAT - a very organized group with weapons, armor, tools, and training that you and your band of heroes doesn't have.
If, on the off chance, you manage to beat them, what's coming next is the National Guard for your state, who has grenades, tanks, APCs, and lots of other tools at their disposal that you don't. Shooting at a tank or an APC with your AR-15 won't do a whole lot.
If you and your rebellion somehow survive that, then they're going to bring in the really really big guns you have really no answer to - drones, bombs, artillery, and so forth.
If you and your rebellion somehow survive all of that, you are now responsible for the civil administration of the area you just took over. You have to make sure that the roads are repaired, the water supply is good, the electricity is on, and so forth. Do you and your rebellion have the ability do to that? I highly doubt it - even the far larger and far more organized groups like Daesh can't do that. If you fail to manage this well, then the population of your new little country is going to undermine you and eventually help your enemies destroy you.
The only reason a guy like Cliven Bundy is not dead is that President Obama is intentionally pulling his punches. If you're starting your little rebellion over something that seems to the average Joe as arcane technicalities that, according to the authorities, protect America from terrorism, it's unlikely that a president will be so accommodating. And once you start killing cops and troops, the chances of cops and military personnel joining your side of things is basically nil - you've just killed their buddies, and that's going to eliminate any chances you might have had for defections.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DECbot on Monday November 30 2015, @06:52PM
About the only thing the 2nd Amendment makes sense when it comes to fighting the government is when your entire state decides the Federal thing is overrated. Like if Texas ever gets serious and says "F.U. 'Merica! We're are own country now!" and needs a bunch of flesh armor for it's National Guard troops. The last time the states thought they could fight the Federal government, well... lets just say the South lost (see US Civil War for details). Otherwise, the 2nd Amendment is really just for hunting, protecting the castle, and scaring the Bejesus out of law enforcement and domestic offenders. For those purposes, we'd be better off with gun laws like Austria, where rifles, hand guns, and repeat-action shotguns are restricted to licensed and registered owners while breach loaded shotguns of unmodified length are mostly unregulated. Straightforward laws would, one, make it clear what is acceptable and what is a crime, and two, prevent abuse of the law from authorities who are not current with the present interpretation of the law. The 2nd Amendment was deliberately written ambiguously and it will take an act of Congress to fix that and we're overdue for a fix. If the US Government was serious about allowing the population to own weapons in order to keep the Federal government's power in check, we would be able to privately own military grade weaponry. Either we should have guns without restriction or let there be sensible restrictions that are easy to comprehend and uniform across the states. An outright ban would be ridiculous given our culture, but likewise complete deregulation would likely cause serious problems too.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Thexalon on Monday November 30 2015, @06:56PM
Because we all know how well that turned out the last time somebody decided that.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 30 2015, @09:14PM
You're missing the historical context. The second amendment's real value was in allowing the citizenry to possess weapons and train as a militia in lieu of a standing army. The Founding Fathers loathed the idea of having a permanent and professional army -- the tool of tyrants -- but times have changed. You can thank nuclear weapons for that in no small part: you can't realistically run a nuclear deterrent with local, volunteer militia.
Once we got a professional, standing army, the second amendment became a confusing relic. Nevertheless the widespread possession of firearms does still serve as a further deterrent to foreign invasion: an enemy would face severe logistical difficulties in airlifting or sealifting troops across the Ocean fast enough to suppress an armed populace of the size present in the US, even if they did manage to defeat the professional military. The only way to defeat the US would be through nuclear annihilation of a large percentage of the population, and that would involve retaliation that would ensure a mutual loss rather victory for either party.
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Monday November 30 2015, @09:39PM
This nails it. The fact that we have a national army is counter to second amendment. They should have been more explicit in that, but because of WW et al at some poitn it would have been amended regardless. We couldn't fight those war with a Militia.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 01 2015, @04:55AM
We should still amend the constitution to allow for a standing army, because we're blatantly violating it at the moment.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday December 01 2015, @05:29AM
Nevertheless the widespread possession of firearms does still serve as a further deterrent to foreign invasion: an enemy would face severe logistical difficulties in airlifting or sealifting troops across the Ocean fast enough to suppress an armed populace of the size present in the US, even if they did manage to defeat the professional military.
That is reliving war scenarios not even from the 20th century, but more like 19th century, when an attacker wanted to have control over the conquered land to exploit it. Today other scenarios are more likely.
For example, let's say the US military is defeated and US's nuclear installations are taken out by paratroopers. Ports and ships are destroyed, Internet cables are cut. The USA is taken out of world's markets. Why then to bother getting in and trying to fight the residents of every little town? What will that give the attacker? What is there of value in little towns? If some places contain valuable property, like major bank vaults, they will be taken so quickly that no militamen will ever realize what just happened. Want to capture Intel's designs? Well, how many people do you need to hold a small campus for a few days?
In this scenario the country is suddenly cut off from manufactured goods and from a good deal of necessary ingredients for all the domestic production (like steel, for example.) Oil shortages will result in lower agricultural yields and in lower availability of foods, as transportation will become very difficult. After a while the country will collapse economically, without even one foreign soldier coming in and fighting the natives. That's exactly what was done to Libya - its military was defeated, the government was physically destroyed, and the remains of the country were left to rot in place. The attacker will not want immediate access to US's resources; what he wants is to remove those resources from the global market and sell their own instead. Availability of weapons within the USA will only ensure that the US's population will decimate itself within a few years.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 01 2015, @05:05AM
Two of your SJW friends were killed in colorado last week. I am grateful to the founding fathers for creating the 2nd ammendment. I am glad your 2 SJW friends are dead.
If you are ever killed, worker bee, ill celebrate that too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 01 2015, @04:26AM
"How exactly are you proposing to do that?"
The president of ROSCOM (russia's defense industry) indicated that Russia would start shipping container based anti-aircraft missiles to the south if the south rebelled in a neo-confederacy.
Clearly OP is talking about that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 30 2015, @06:27PM
1) As Jim Jefferies the comedian said, "you're bringing guns to a drone fight.": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCA5pxS5ITI [youtube.com]
You will likely lose, and mainstream media will spin you all as a bunch of failed wackos/terrorists (depending on your skin color/religion) and the cops/troops killed in battle as heroes.
2) If you ignorant stupid fools can't even pick good leaders with votes, what the fuck makes you think you would do a better job picking your leaders with guns? "Because guns will magically only shoot the bad guys?"
2.1) even if for some miraculous reason you win. Guess who ultimately rises to the top in such a scenario? The person capable of the most violence.
If you have any brains you'd realize that if you choose your leaders by "most violence" instead of "most votes" when you get tired of your Great Dictator, it's a lot harder to outvote him, since in most cases he still has the "most violence" (usually by a higher margin since he's killed off the rest and consolidated his power). Why do you think so many violent revolutions led to dictatorships? Despite whatever they originally wanted - Communism etc.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by physicsmajor on Monday November 30 2015, @06:48PM
I don't disagree, but would like to point out that the election process is so broken that no candidates are put forth worth voting for or interested in implementing meaningful change. None.
If you're interested in actually having an effect on the system, use this simple method:
Memorize every incumbent. Then vote against all of them.
If it's a new race, vote for the one you haven't seen or heard of - they had less funding for advertising. That's a good thing; it means fewer corporate ties.
I'm serious. Vote against every incumbent regardless of party affiliation. If they're currently in office, they are part of the problem. Anyone new will be more beholden to their constituents. Beyond that, vote third party or independent wherever possible.
(Score: 1) by Chromium_One on Monday November 30 2015, @01:55PM
And yet, the logic being used to circumvent other constitutional protections is often just as tortured.
Fighting illogic with illogic is perhaps not the best route to go.
When you live in a sick society, everything you do is wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 30 2015, @02:16PM
I agree. Do not twist the meaning. It may work for you *this* time. But next time someone else will twist it to their will. Just dont.
The one show that really brought into clarity the bill of rights for me was The Tudors. A show about the excess of the crown. Pretty much every major plot point in that mini series was in some way would have been against the American constitution. The founders saw exactly what the crown was doing. They were Englishmen after all.
This all could be fixed with a small tweak to the 4th. The words 'and be of very limited scope and time'. The gov has perverted the assumed meaning to mean so long as they get a judge to write off on it they are golden. That is not 'reasonable'. Building massive complexes and huge computer systems no one in this nation could afford outside of Bill Gates is not reasonable.
The 3rd was put in there because it was a convenient way for the gov to 'find something on you' and 'keep you under control'. It was also a way to push the cost of war upon the population. It also helps limit civilian casualties in the case of war. As now a house that has soldiers in it becomes a target. War is ugly and usually fought with people burning houses to the ground and everyone in the immediate area killed.
The 5th, 6th, and 7th would be better venues that the gov is breaking the 4th. As double jeopardy could come into play. You are a known associate but now you are used to incriminate others and they are used to incriminate you. Probable cause is only because you have your unreasonable unlimited warrant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 30 2015, @03:00PM
Isn't surveillance also a convenient way for the gov to 'find something on you' and 'keep you under control'?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 30 2015, @08:26PM
This all could be fixed with a small tweak to the 4th.
No need. Mass surveillance is already necessarily forbidden by the fourth. It amazes how they think that they can't just get a warrant to break into random people's houses because there might be bad guys somewhere (not specific enough, and no evidence of which house it is), but they think they can conduct mass surveillance on most of the populace without even so much as a genuine warrant (which they couldn't do even with a warrant). It's hilarious how they try to justify this.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday November 30 2015, @02:55PM
Could the Third Amendment be Used to Fight the Surveillance State?
No, because whenever governments write a piece of paper that defines limits on what they can do, they simply ignore it. The government is the only judge of whether or not the government has gone too far, and if the government decides they haven't gone too far we have absolutely no recourse whatsoever. Sure there's semi-separation of powers, but as we can all see that has worked about as well as writing pieces of paper that limit the government.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 30 2015, @04:16PM
And yet, it is a government by and for the people. Which means it can be changed by the people. The most entrenched politician has to be periodically re-elected. You want him out? Vote him out! But that is work. Hard work. It requires getting off one's ass to do something, and that is why it rarely happens. It's far easier to whine about the current situation, maybe throw $20 to the EFF or third-party candidate, and then declaring that one has done all they could but the system is stacked against them. Barring unique circumstances, voter turnout the world over is pretty poor.
Playing armchair patriot or revolutionary may make one feel better, but it is an empty gesture, and I would argue it just as empty for the ones who go out and do a "protest vote"; hey, great for you, but the annoying thing is that the intention seems to be more so that they can go around and repeatedly let us know that THEY didn't vote for Kane or Kodos (yeah, dude, we get it, you're WAY smarter than us and we see you as a rebel. Really.).
You want to do something? Start with contacting your representatives and let them know how you feel on issues. And I'm not talking about forwarding on chain emails or faxes.
(Score: 3, Informative) by jdavidb on Monday November 30 2015, @05:07PM
You want him out? Vote him out! ... You want to do something? Start with contacting your representatives and let them know how you feel on issues.
ROTFLOL! Pull the other one!
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 30 2015, @07:09PM
Exactly. Doing something is too hard. Whining is easy.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday November 30 2015, @07:38PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 30 2015, @08:14PM
Is it possible to eliminate democracy from within a democracy? Voting to eliminate the right to vote?
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday November 30 2015, @09:15PM
Is it possible to eliminate democracy from within a democracy? Voting to eliminate the right to vote?
That is a very interesting question to contemplate. :)
Right now I can't vote for "leave the office vacant" in our elections, and I also can't vote for "let people secede." So at the moment it doesn't seem to be possible.
If enough people were persuaded that liberty is preferable to democracy this might change. We might see candidates run on these platforms. Or people might just start to ignore the whole system. The services that they actually needed from government they can obtain elsewhere and the parts that they didn't can of course simply be shut down through neglect.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 01 2015, @01:42AM
We might see candidates run on these platforms.
"If elected, nobody will serve!" [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Tuesday December 01 2015, @02:02AM
I love that one. :) That's my official campaign slogan if anyone ever makes the terrible mistake of attempting to nominate me.
In fact, I thought it was a great reason to vote for Dick Cheney for any office, anywhere, from now on. It's an awesome campaign promise to make. :)
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday November 30 2015, @08:29PM
So if you think democracy is the problem, then what do you prefer? Because all other forms of government I know are worse.
Also note that democracy is not a single system, but a whole class of systems. The USA, Germany and Switzerland are all democratic, and yet their differences are extremely large. So what makes you think democracy as such is the problem, and not just the specific system adopted by the US?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 30 2015, @08:59PM
then what do you prefer?
Obviously we should decide things by 20-sided dice roll.
ISIS attacks! Roll for initiative.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jdavidb on Monday November 30 2015, @09:13PM
I prefer letting multiple governments coexist within the same territory. Individuals can subscribe to whichever they prefer and voluntarily leave for others, which gives a concrete realization to the part of the declaration of independence that says "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
The problem is that right now the one government is its own arbitrator of whether or not it has gone too far. If people and groups could secede at any time governments would have to be more restrained in order to retain citizens. In this system citizens would be more like clients and less like subjects.
This way, if I believe that in order to be safe I need to wage war on people on the other side of the world, I and my fellow citizens in our government can do it, but if you disagree we can't force you to support it. Or if we want to outlaw abortion or marijuana use we can for our citizens, but if you disagree you can help women and marijuana users secede and protect their rights within your government.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday December 01 2015, @02:06AM
What we have here in the US isn't even remotely approximating a democracy. Do your "representatives" even care about your opinions, let alone let you vote on their decisions? All they have to do is gerrymander, spend enough money, and maybe threaten their opponent's family and they're guaranteed their next election. We know for a fact that the "democratic process" is broken. Remember the bailouts? We called, emailed, and wrote letters to our "representatives" in record numbers, 90% of us telling them in no uncertain terms not to do it, but they did it anyway. If you need further evidence, look at the 2012 Democratic National Convention, when those running the party were taken aback by the people going off script: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cncbOEoQbOg [youtube.com]
We have no true representatives in government, and those in power have no care for our wishes.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 30 2015, @09:59PM
Dude, quit arguing with me. I'm on your side: it's too much work so it isn't worth doing.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday November 30 2015, @10:22PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday November 30 2015, @07:39PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday December 01 2015, @11:20AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Tuesday December 01 2015, @12:59PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Tuesday December 01 2015, @01:05PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday November 30 2015, @05:08PM
Barring unique circumstances, voter turnout the world over is pretty poor.
As if voter turnout would actually fix the problem. I doubt you and I even agree on what the problems are, which is a good indication of why voting will never fix this.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 30 2015, @06:48PM
Really? The last I checked many voters are getting what they care strongly about- marriage equality (or not), abortion (or not), legalization of marijuana.
They don't know or don't care about the NSA spying on them.
Many corporations are getting what they care strongly about too - stronger and longer monopolies, more power against governments. See the TPPA and similar. Most people don't care about boring stuff like that. Don't believe me? Go bring up TPPA or TTIP. Then bring up marriage equality etc. Try both for and against. See what turns the other person's face red the most ;).
So most people are getting what they want the most. Democracy working as designed. Win-win... Kinda ;).
If you think your pet interest is much more important then work to convince the other voters. Just because you don't like the results of Democracy doesn't mean those results are invalid.
As you said yourself:
. I doubt you and I even agree on what the problems are,
So just because others disagree with you means stuff isn't working? In summary, the US voter population is split on many issues they regard as more important. This plays into the hands of the lobbyists and corporations and the US Gov itself, but the US voters still don't care - they vote on the issues they really care about. Democracy at work. It's crap but the alternatives like letting people like YOU have all the say would be even worse.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday November 30 2015, @06:54PM
You're not speaking my language. Democracy is only a "win" for some people at the expense of others. People don't get liberty from this system and it's not because they don't know or care about liberty - it's because the system is the opposite of liberty. A majority ruling a minority is not liberty.
Grant the right to secede and then your system will be legitimate.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday November 30 2015, @06:55PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday November 30 2015, @07:04PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday November 30 2015, @07:07PM
So just because others disagree with you means stuff isn't working?
The people who disagree with me threaten violence against me (like putting me in jail or confiscating my money). Yes, obviously, that is not working. The minority should not be compelled to live by the will of the minority. That is slavery.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 30 2015, @07:18PM
No, he's clearly one of those toddlers that have taken over political discussion. If it isn't 100% his way, then it is wrong. They are a scourge on democracy. I don't care enough to look at his posting history to see if he's one of those infantile tea baggers (the Freedom Caucus; at least they are consistent with keeping to the tradition of naming yourself in contradiction to what you stand for, like those "Freedom" bills that take away our freedoms), but he fits in philosophically where compromise is bad, and they'll hold their breath until they get their way or they'll take their ball and go home.
The first step to a better functioning government is to sweep away the flotsam and jetsam like these guys so that we can address issues in an adult manner.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday November 30 2015, @07:48PM
The first step to a better functioning government is to sweep away the flotsam and jetsam like these guys so that we can address issues in an adult manner.
And yet everybody is always trying to increase voter turnout. Isn't that a contradiction?
I would like for you to have a government where nobody gets a say except the people you approve. I would like for you to have the freedom to sweep away people that you believe can't address issues in an adult manner. But democracy is the opposite of that - all of the non-adults can have their way over you if they gang up together.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 30 2015, @09:55PM
Wow, nice twist of words there; I hope that is out of some adolescent desire to win an argument at all costs and not because your world view is so warped.
I'm saying that if we want to get things done, we need to push aside the deadweight like you, the ones who steadfastly refuse to do anything unless they get 100% of what they want (which, incidentally, changes over time, depending upon what the guy on the radio tells them they want). I don't give a flying fuck what people want, as long as they have the mental maturity to compromise (ewwwww, there's that nasty word that the guys on the radio say is bad), because quite frankly, everyone's not going to get 100% of what they want, and it is remarkable stupidity to insist that you do.
The jackasses on the right have to stop arguing about who idolizes Reagan the most and face their own hypocrisy that they would run Reagan out on a RINO rail if he were to come back today. He's the guy who cut an immigration deal. Who signed the Brady Bill. Who supported an assault weapons ban. Etc., etc. What made him a very effective president wasn't some stupid adherence to some litmus test of "purity", but the fact that he got stuff done, stuff that he wanted to get done. He cut deals when he needed to. He was genuinely liked on both sides of the aisle, even if his politics weren't. Reagan would throw out the fucktards who claim to idolize him today because they are unreasonable jackasses.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way. You and your ilk aren't doing any of that and you're just in the way. Do us all a favor and take a decade or two off to mentally mature and come to the table with some ideas when you're ready.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday November 30 2015, @10:23PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday November 30 2015, @10:26PM
What made him a very effective president wasn't some stupid adherence to some litmus test of "purity", but the fact that he got stuff done
I honestly, truly, do not want a president getting stuff done. Almost everything they want to do is what I don't want done. Like waging war in the middle east, for example. I prefer no president at all, but if I'm forced to have one, I prefer one who does nothing.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday November 30 2015, @08:36PM
marriage equality (or not), abortion (or not), legalization of marijuana.
How long did that take? The majority is ignorant, unintelligent, and very slow at recognizing a problem. Maybe mass surveillance will be stopped eventually, but how long are we going to have to endure this massive violation of our rights and constitution in the meantime?
So most people are getting what they want the most. Democracy working as designed. Win-win... Kinda ;).
If mass surveillance is democracy working as designed, then democracy will destroy itself. [gnu.org]
If you think your pet interest is much more important then work to convince the other voters. Just because you don't like the results of Democracy doesn't mean those results are invalid.
When they result in the violation of people's fundamental liberties and the highest law of the land, the results are unethical, and in this case, outright criminal. The government can't violate the constitution even with the consent of the people, which mass surveillance necessarily does. And mass surveillance is far more than a "pet interest".
Democracy is simply the least bad of the options we currently know about; it's still abysmal, but mainly because the majority has a way of being intolerably moronic and screwing everything up no matter what it is.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday November 30 2015, @05:19PM
Playing armchair patriot or revolutionary may make one feel better, but it is an empty gesture
Voting may make one feel better, but it is worse than an empty gesture, and the problem is not inadequate voter turnout. The majority shouldn't rule the minority and people should be allowed to alter, abolish, or secede from the government when they deem that it is destructive of the ends securing rights with just powers derived from the consent of the governed.
I do not consent to be governed by Washington, DC until Washington, DC allows people to be governed by competitors within the same territory. Full stop.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday November 30 2015, @05:22PM
And yet, it is a government by and for the people
Of course it isn't. That's just marketing. And the reason it isn't true is not because enough people don't vote. That idea is also marketing.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GlennC on Monday November 30 2015, @03:13PM
It probably could.
It won't be, because nobody in the Republicratic Party would let it.
The Party likes its hold on power too much.
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 30 2015, @09:24PM
It won't be, because nobody in the Party would let it.
FTFY
(Score: 5, Insightful) by takyon on Monday November 30 2015, @04:11PM
If the 4th amendment wasn't enough to stop surveillance, the 3rd will be laughed out of court.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by el_oscuro on Monday November 30 2015, @11:35PM
https://xkcd.com/496/ [xkcd.com]
SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]