General Discussion

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)

63. How about peeking through someone's window without their knowledge?

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 02:34 PM

Jun 2013

Reading their mail without their knowledge.

Going through their drawers without their knowledge.

Without their knowledge or permission.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

101 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

2 law professors: Obama "has seemingly forgotten the constitutional law he once taught." [View all] adric mutelovic Jun 2013 OP

K & R !!! WillyT Jun 2013 #1

And yet every relevant Federal Appeals court decision disagrees with them. nt stevenleser Jun 2013 #2

So you are saying that which the courts uphold is always good and correct? Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #3

Nope, my short statement is exactly what it is. Not enough room there for your straw man. nt stevenleser Jun 2013 #9

which appeals judge said the programs were constitutional? adric mutelovic Jun 2013 #10

Start with 1984 US v Duggan stevenleser Jun 2013 #12

so foreign, not everyone and their mom? adric mutelovic Jun 2013 #15

Did you read it and the other cases and situations it cites? Or did you decide it was irrelevant out stevenleser Jun 2013 #16

Are you defending the spying or just Pres Obama? nm rhett o rick Jun 2013 #90

We are all foreigners now... zeemike Jun 2013 #55

Key word being FOREIGN. And that ruling was 30 years ago. nm rhett o rick Jun 2013 #89

which cases are those? adric mutelovic Jun 2013 #5

Start with 1984 US v Duggan stevenleser Jun 2013 #11

Id rather start with a ruling justifying collecting everyone's metadata adric mutelovic Jun 2013 #17

Duggan does that and more and provides more cases that back it up. All you have to do is read. stevenleser Jun 2013 #22

No. Duggan doesn't do that adric mutelovic Jun 2013 #39

It absolutely lays out the power of the President and executive branch with regards to foreign stevenleser Jun 2013 #45

Duggan concerned the admissibility of evidence in a court in a case JDPriestly Jun 2013 #58

Yep yep. These are not necessarily good laws, but the court rulings say it's okay. BenzoDia Jun 2013 #6

I don't believe that n/t Enrique Jun 2013 #7

The caselaw doesnt care that you dispute its existence. nt stevenleser Jun 2013 #20

But any reader that takes your word when you can not cite this 'plethora' of examples Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #28

I have always happily provided the cases for people to check. How many would you like? stevenleser Jun 2013 #33

There's just one problem with that Hydra Jun 2013 #8

You mean one out of several thousand requests right? Have you compared that to the average stevenleser Jun 2013 #36

Huh? Hydra Jun 2013 #42

And they've never been wrong. progressoid Jun 2013 #13

Which you could say about anything. That is not an argument. nt stevenleser Jun 2013 #14

Exactly. It's a meaningful as yours. progressoid Jun 2013 #19

No, it's not. There is a plethora of caselaw behind my opinion. nt stevenleser Jun 2013 #21

But you are assuming that your "plethora" is right. progressoid Jun 2013 #23

Again, you can say that about anything. That is not an argument. nt stevenleser Jun 2013 #25

I see your hyperbolic claims got wide mockery from the DU community as they should have Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #27

You would like to think so wouldn't you? No one has been able to dispute a single contention. stevenleser Jun 2013 #32

Debating these self-described "Constitutional experts" here... ConservativeDemocrat Jun 2013 #60

So tell us who is on "your side" besides Clapper, Mueller, the Republican Party, and the Corp-Media? rhett o rick Jun 2013 #93

+1 woo me with science Jun 2013 #35

jeez do you not understand? arely staircase Jun 2013 #64

Nor is saying that legal precedent is a valid defense. progressoid Jun 2013 #37

You should reread your title a few more times and see if it still makes sense to you. stevenleser Jun 2013 #38

Which title? progressoid Jun 2013 #41

This post has nothing to do with what's being talked about here, I just want to say I love your a kennedy Jun 2013 #71

Please provide evidence. nm rhett o rick Jun 2013 #88

The warrant revealed by the Guardian clearly violates both the Constitution and also rhett o rick Jun 2013 #91

Ever since Kennedy, no President has even questioned the Military Industrial Complex Taverner Jun 2013 #4

You're seriously suggesting Kennedy was assassinated by the U.S. military?!? ConservativeDemocrat Jun 2013 #61

I am not. I am saying they tried to take credit for it. Taverner Jun 2013 #66

So who do you theorize assassinated Pres Kennedy after all the evidence out there today? nm rhett o rick Jun 2013 #92

The President inherited the law-breaking from the previous Administration... kentuck Jun 2013 #18

He, of course, didn't just inherit the law-breakers. He happily adopted them. AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2013 #26

Say what? "...Being the new kid in town, bike man Jun 2013 #29

Well, that durn 4th Amerndment is soooo tricky..and inconvenient. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #24

I find the quoting of bare amendments to be a facile tactic. For example, if I posted: msanthrope Jun 2013 #30

Soo...what part of the 4th do you disagree with/agree with? Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #34

Again.... a better question would encompass some of the 200 years of msanthrope Jun 2013 #46

Do you agree with "200 years of jurisprudence" that gives the goverment the right to spy on its own Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #47

You aren't being specific enough for me to comment on. Be specific. Who, what, where? nt msanthrope Jun 2013 #48

How specific do I have to be? Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #49

Define 'spying.' nt msanthrope Jun 2013 #51

Here Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #52

Define 'spying.' Not 'spy.'. Define the activities you think are 'spying.' nt msanthrope Jun 2013 #54

You're kidding. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #57

No, I'm not. Define what you think is 'spying.' A specific action. nt msanthrope Jun 2013 #59

How about peeking through someone's window without their knowledge? Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #63

LEO's on lawful business can look through your windows. What they can do with what they see depends msanthrope Jun 2013 #65

You really aren't going to answer the question, are you? Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #67

When you ask me a question with some specificity, I answer it. I just did. nt msanthrope Jun 2013 #68

Do you approve of the government spying on you? Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #69

I have no evidence to think the government is doing anything impermissible to me. msanthrope Jun 2013 #72

Or, to anyone else? Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #73

To whom? Again, if you've got specifics, let us know. nt msanthrope Jun 2013 #74

I would have to be OK with it if it were allowed under the law treestar Jun 2013 #83

And apparently, that is the meaning of the law to you treestar Jun 2013 #82

Exactly treestar Jun 2013 #79

I've decided that the perfect reply to that is the 2nd, or the 3rd amendment. nt msanthrope Jun 2013 #81

Lot's of a-hole lawyers trying to get their 15 minutes at Obama's expense flamingdem Jun 2013 #31

Haha Hydra Jun 2013 #43

Bingo. Scurrilous Jun 2013 #56

yes all the best lawyers are ok with the surveillance Enrique Jun 2013 #62

Both sides get a lawyer in a case - did you know that? treestar Jun 2013 #84

Obama got his fame at the expense of the Working Class and the Constitution FreakinDJ Jun 2013 #80

So who do you stand with? Clapper and Mueller? The Corp-Media? nm rhett o rick Jun 2013 #94

Who would be better to circumvent the Constitution... FlyByNight Jun 2013 #40

They keep pushing it off as "metadata" Hydra Jun 2013 #44

A constitutional scholar would be able to argue either side of it treestar Jun 2013 #85

Like Bush, Obama got a note from his lawyer that says everything is Just Peachy Legal!!! bvar22 Jun 2013 #50

This is the best thing I've read so far on this subject marions ghost Jun 2013 #53

I don't think he paid much attention in some of his classes. The Link Jun 2013 #70

Everytime the familar face of law and Constitution is chipped at - blasting off an eyebrow here kenny blankenship Jun 2013 #75

When much of junior's handiwork has been ratified and continued, it shouldn't be surprising that the indepat Jun 2013 #76

Tell his Mama watch out - He'll sell her out too FreakinDJ Jun 2013 #77

These professors apparently never learned it treestar Jun 2013 #78

The argument that the President is helpless is contrary to the many posts here that give him credit. rhett o rick Jun 2013 #96

The President is helpless outside Article II treestar Jun 2013 #97

He can appoint another head of the security agencies if he thinks they are operating outside rhett o rick Jun 2013 #98

The whole complain is that this is within the law treestar Jun 2013 #99

The NSA is operating outside the law. Your continued denial wont make it right. The warrant that rhett o rick Jun 2013 #100

They didn't get their ponies Doctor_J Jun 2013 #86

The death of the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments under his watch underscore the sentiment. Fire Walk With Me Jun 2013 #87

Obama is a very intelligent man. NCTraveler Jun 2013 #95

Yes he is now siding with the Republicans on the Patriot Act and domestic spying. rhett o rick Jun 2013 #101