SoylentNews

MN Legislature Introduces Amendment to Protect Electronic Communication

posted by janrinok on Wednesday February 18 2015, @09:48PM   
from the one-state-at-a-time dept.

Kromagv0 writes:

The Minnesota legislature has introduced an amendment to the MN Constitution to enshrine the protections afforded by the 4th amendment to electronic communication and data as well. It appears that this amendment has broad diverse support in the state house but leadership in the state senate is only lukewarm on it. In the senate Ron Latz (DFL) Chairman of the Judiciary Committee had blocked the amendment stating that he feels it is redundant. Additionally Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk (DFL) opposes the amendment because it is an amendment to the MN constitution. If passed, Minnesota would become only the second state to enact such a change — Missouri enacted its amendment last year with 75% of the popular vote.

• Re:Largely pointless. (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 19 2015, @02:58PM

  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 19 2015, @02:58PM (#146971)

  " but repeating it at the state level is largely a pointless exercise. "

  The 14th amendment was also accused of being redundant and unnecessary. Though even after the 14th amendment was passed many states decided to play games instead of getting with the program. We can expect the same thing here, except backwards. Either that or a Constitutional Convention which is entirely possible at this point.

  If you read the U.S. Constitution critically, and compare it to many state Constitutions, the states are often more explicit about civil rights than is the Federal government. For example, while the Declaration of Independence cites the origin of sovereign authority, but no such citation exists in the U.S. Constitution. In my state the citation does exist. So legally speaking, we are a government "by the people" at a state level, but not at a federal level. (Civics teachers everywhere cringe)

  There are also still remnants of indecision that go all the way back to the founders. For example, the distinction of ONE law, for all people is still largely absent. The only thing that prevents formal aristocracy is article section 9 paragraph 8, (I think) which is the section that says we don't do titles of nobility. Though it is fair to say that this is precisely what the authority delegated by many regulatory agencies has evolved into in substance.

  So the distinction of formal aristocracy is largely semantic at this point. Certainly Corporations are setting up their own courts and dispensing law within private jurisdictions in many ways. This may not be a power grab, so much as pragmatism in the face of Congressional refusal to appoint judges.

  Really state law is where it's at at this point. Or where it needs to be, since Federal law is failing at a procedural level. It is hard to avoid characterizing the Fed as an International government at this point. Congress takes funding from International conglomerates, which could be reasonably argued to violate article 1 section 10. So there are procedural problems that will require litigation to get sorted out. The states taking a stricter view on civil rights is a good thing, because it is likely to compel that litigation.

  Parent