The Black Vault

Jaack wrote:How patently false is your assumption nesaie, and Robs erudite assertion.

First you folks need to actually read the Constitution and the amendments. Collecting information is specifically allowed in the constitution.

Once again, the Constitution does NOT support collecting private information. Though the 4th amendment doesn't specifically say "the right to privacy", it has always been interpreted that way by the Supreme court.

I've shown a couple of cases supporting the above statement.

Now, you want to go off on a slippery slope. Not playing this time.

When I send an email to one specific person, that is a private interaction. The Fourth Amendment guarantees me that no government entity will read that. By the feds monitoring cell phones and emails, they are breaking the law of this land, the Constitution. I don't care what laws these traitors put in place, they don't count if they interfere with the Constitution. The Constitution was put in place to prevent the tyranny that has been creeping in the last hundred years. These liars had to take an oath to uphold the Constitution, and they've lied.

Tairaa wrote:Jaack is against privacy.

You're not an American! You don't support freedom!

If he was born here or legally immigrated here, he can call himself an American. But, he can't call himself a Patriot.

Then again, when the feds don't even know the Bill of Rights...how do you expect somebody like Jaack to know them? We gotta pity the ignorant. Unless they're working for the pentagon on tax payer dollar. In which case, they're traitors.

Nesaie wrote:

Jaack wrote:How patently false is your assumption nesaie, and Robs erudite assertion.

First you folks need to actually read the Constitution and the amendments. Collecting information is specifically allowed in the constitution.

Once again, the Constitution does NOT support collecting private information. Though the 4th amendment doesn't specifically say "the right to privacy", it has always been interpreted that way by the Supreme court.

I've shown a couple of cases supporting the above statement.

Now, you want to go off on a slippery slope. Not playing this time.

When I send an email to one specific person, that is a private interaction. The Fourth Amendment guarantees me that no government entity will read that. By the feds monitoring cell phones and emails, they are breaking the law of this land, the Constitution. I don't care what laws these traitors put in place, they don't count if they interfere with the Constitution. The Constitution was put in place to prevent the tyranny that has been creeping in the last hundred years. These liars had to take an oath to uphold the Constitution, and they've lied.

The supreme court has not always viewed is as a right to privacy. Like I said that happened in the 40's to the 50's. Right to privacy, freedom of religion, separation of church and state were all phrases said by a racist KKK memeber of the court whose name I do not recall at the moment.

O and for the patriot quip

whatever.

Jaack wrote:


The supreme court has not always viewed is as a right to privacy. Like I said that happened in the 40's to the 50's.

You can claim anything you want. Until you state the court cases, I cannot believe anything you say.

Jaack wrote:
Right to privacy, freedom of religion, separation of church and state were all phrases said by a racist KKK memeber of the court whose name I do not recall at the moment.

You're mixing up the First Amendment and the Fourth. I know, they both start with 'F'. It's easy to do for some with dyslexia and such.

The Fourth Amendment doesn't explicitly state "the right to privacy", but has been interpreted as that, hence, "Roe vs Wade".

I repeat, the Fourth Amendment says:

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.

The First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Speaking of the First Amendment, don't join or let anyone you know join the new volunteers program Obama just signed. If they do they lose their First Amendment rights. They can't teach Sunday school, lobby for or against unions, lobby for or against anything. That bill SUCKS! And, they made a committee to see if this "voluntary" program should be MANDITORY!!!

The point is, the Amendments were written before the KKK. And yes, I know that Jefferson had slaves and created children with at least one of his servants. (just saying before that side track crap comes up).

I was talking about the first amendment because the same guy came up with the catch phrases.

You have Google.

IDK if you believe me or not.

I have google and know how to use it, but you're the one making the claim, you do the search.

I've backed my statements with court cases.

You can't back your statements can you? Generally, when a person can back their claims they link to supporting references. Since you haven't I can only assume you have no backing for your claims.

You Lost

Nesaie wrote:I have google and know how to use it, but you're the one making the claim, you do the search.

I've backed my statements with court cases.

You can't back your statements can you? Generally, when a person can back their claims they link to supporting references. Since you haven't I can only assume you have no backing for your claims.

You Lost

No I didn't.

Jaack wrote:

Nesaie wrote:I have google and know how to use it, but you're the one making the claim, you do the search.

I've backed my statements with court cases.

You can't back your statements can you? Generally, when a person can back their claims they link to supporting references. Since you haven't I can only assume you have no backing for your claims.

You Lost

No I didn't.

Yes you did. You can't back you're claims. I back my claims.

You Lost

Nesaie wrote:

Jaack wrote:

Nesaie wrote:I have google and know how to use it, but you're the one making the claim, you do the search.

I've backed my statements with court cases.

You can't back your statements can you? Generally, when a person can back their claims they link to supporting references. Since you haven't I can only assume you have no backing for your claims.

You Lost

No I didn't.

Yes you did. You can't back you're claims. I back my claims.

You Lost

I backed mine with the Constitution.