No. Not really. I'd have just prefered to wear the blinders and bitch about him after the election. Seeing both parties clearly join Al Queda is just depressing.
He's been flip-flopping on several stands he took during the primaries. :(
Bottom line, he's just another politician.
I'd hardly bring up flip-flopping when McCain is still in the race. He's flip-flopped more than Obama, both Clintons, and Kerry combined.
I think the Democrats realized if they got rid of the ability for the government to illegally spy on us, it would mean the Democrats couldn't use that power themselves.
Never ever ever be surprised when Republicans or Democrats vote to increase governmental power and infringe on our rights.
Never be surprised when POLITICIANS of any stripe "vote to increase governmental power and infringe on our rights."
Its still depressing news, however. I wish for once somebody would put up a candidate I could have a small degree of faith in, but the political process seems too far gone for that. :(
I would be surprised if any libertarian politician voted to increase governmental power or infringe on our rights. Actually, I take that back. I've seen plenty of people claim to be libertarians when they are not. No actual libertarian would do either of those things.
I'd be curious to know why he did this. It's not going to win him any votes from anybody. [/disillusioned]
If both candidates support the same thing, it doesn't hurt/help either one.
I'd be curious to know why he did this.
Perhaps he knows he will be held responsible if he is President and there is another major attack.
Perhaps he knows he will be held responsible if he is President and there is another major attack.
A major attack would have nothing to do with the government's ability to violate the Constitution and our privacy rights. Spying on Americans is treason regardless of whom they are talking to. The government should have to provide a judge with probable cause to obtain a warrant to search someone and they should have to have a different warrant for each thing they want to search....email...phone...etc.
It's a gross violation to search everyone hoping to catch criminals. For instance, setting up roadblocks to find drunks is absolutely a violation of the Constitution and civil rights.
"government's ability to violate the Constitution and our privacy rights."
We have a Constitutional right to privacy?
Your link seems to require a subscription to The Wall Street Journal to be read in its entirity. From what I can gather from Googling the subject, the right to privacy is a pretty controversial topic. Here's a quote from a site that seems to have quite a bit of information on the subject.
The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.
www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.htmlYour link seems to require a subscription to The Wall Street Journal to be read in its entirity. From what I can gather from Googling the subject, the right to privacy is a pretty controversial topic. Here's a quote from a site that seems to have quite a bit of information on the subject.
www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html
I am sure we're on the same page Sam, but I should point out for those who disagree that our rights don't come from the Constitution. There is no such thing as a "Constitutional right". We are born with our rights and the Constitution was written to protect them; not to define them or limit them. One does not need to define or limit our rights in order to protect them. Our right to privacy is a birthright. The federal government has zero authority to violate our rights and we have a right to not be searched unless there is adequate evidence to suggest we have committed a crime, and then only when a judge agrees and grants a warrant to search one particular thing...a house...a car...telephone conversations...email...etc.
Each requires a different warrant, and each requires a substantial amount of probable cause to gain such a warrant. All alcohol checkpoints, or other random searches such as flying over neighborhoods with thermal sensors to find those who may be growing marijuana are gross violations of the limitations on governmental power, and our civil rights.
It seems to me that the contemporary view of the right to privacy is an extension of the 4th amendment.
"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."
That could go a long way towards planting the idea that people have a certain degree of autonomy and privacy.
Phone conversations, email, IMs and so on are nothing more than our electronic "papers".
I am sure we're on the same page Sam, but I should point out for those who disagree that our rights don't come from the Constitution. There is no such thing as a "Constitutional right". We are born with our rights and the Constitution was written to protect them; not to define them or limit them. One does not need to define or limit our rights in order to protect them. Our right to privacy is a birthright. The federal government has zero authority to violate our rights and we have a right to not be searched unless there is adequate evidence to suggest we have committed a crime, and then only when a judge agrees and grants a warrant to search one particular thing...a house...a car...telephone conversations...email...etc.
This was true once upon a time before our federal government grew into a many headed hydra that grows two heads for each one that is cut off. I still have some small faith in government at the local level. I have found that a citizen can be heard at a town meeting level, and I've even had some success with state representatives, but anything higher, forget it. Now a days our every right must be engraved in steel somewhere, and, even then I suspect that we the people would continue to be tromped on. :eyebrow:
Engraved in steel? With the price of scrap these days, it wouldn't last a week. :(