JJ, you have made repeatedly the case that the First Amendment supersedes (nay, renders obsolete) Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution. Setting this aside for the moment, how about the Fourth Amendment? There appear to be two contradictory
readings here -- which one do you pick?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
This has nothing to do with treason and everyone but the MSM agrees that the wiretapping is justified. That's enough reasonableness for me.
About your (crazy) contention that political speech (and not incitement or recruitment) can be treason, I find no connection to this piece.
Do you think they agree?
As for political speech, how about Tokyo Rose and Lord Haw Haw? Just expressing opinions?
AI, you really know how to pick 'em. TR was railroaded and you give this as an example of the wisdom of the treason-by-speech idea.
Trop facile, as Pepe would say.
Ok, OK, perhaps Tokyo Rose was not the best example, I should have stuck with Hanoi Jane. But as I said in the original post, let's try to leave the 1st vs 3-3 debate aside for a while, and stick to the 4th in this thread - this is what is in the news. So what is your take in the flyboy vs MSM Constitutional debate?
In Airwad (flyboy outside Texan parlance) v. MSM, I am not so sure. The atty writing this piece makes a strong argument about the correct reading of the 4th to mean 'unreasonable' over 'probably cause' and as I said, if everyone in the country things tapping AQ guys' phones is reasonable, it goddamned sure passes the reasonable man test.
This is nearly a tautology.
Still, the Constitution is a very slender framework on which the law is suspended and I think that an empty remark like "NSA employees know what the 4th is about" parodies the likely complicated state of case law.
Who knows how those words have been interpreted in the last couple centuries? We need case history to make a real judgment. This is something Taranto does extremely well, and I do recall his writing on this, but I don't know how to find it.
Something else we haven't mentioned is (again, I believe) Taranto's contention that this appointment was very wise on W's part because it reaffirms the correctness of the NSA program and forces the Dems to reiterate their idiotic claims to the effect that we are living in dictatorship.
The MSM is hell-bent in sabotaging our war effort. May as well hit the krepkaya bottle, and forget about the whole thing. That will do it.
Post a Comment