Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Is it legal because the government says so?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is it legal because the government says so?

    I thought this was interesting

    Who Gets To Make The Call?

    The latest Wiki-leak reminds us: "If you don't step up, then you're doomed to be stepped on."

    IF THE GOVERNMENT or its courts don't respect your rights, does that mean that you don't have them? Or is it within the purview of the government or its courts to decide what rights you have, and therefore to authoritatively determine whether yours are being respected or not?

    If the government or its courts refuse to obey the Constitution, does that mean the Constitution is not the law? Or are the government and its courts the proper authorities to decide what the Constitution requires of them, and therefore to determine whether they are obeying it or not?

    If the government or its courts treat words of the law as meaning something they don't say and demonstrably didn't mean when they were written (or as not meaning what they DO say), do those words then actually not mean what they say? Is everyone supposed to respectfully say, "Gee, I would have thought... Oh, well. Guess I was mistaken..."

    I COULD POSE THESE QUESTIONS on a daily basis in regard to news from Washington and various state capitals with equal relevance. Today it is the latest Wikileaks whistleblowing that prompts these reflections.

    Last week the heroic exposé organization revealed that the CIA has been engaged in an utterly despotic and downright psychopath-creepy spying program involving invasions and data-seizures--or efforts to become capable of invading and plundering-- of and from every smart-phone in America (as well as other places. The program even goes so far as to involve hidden remote switch-ons of "smart"-TV microphones for the purpose of surreptitiously recording conversations in the homes of anyone with a susceptible device.

    Understand that these are not tools needed for conducting legitimate, warranted surveillance. Any legitimate, warranted surveillance has no need of broad, indiscriminate capabilities.

    Legitimate, warranted surveillance is accomplished by the narrow application of court-approved, target-specific equipment or other tools. Broad, indiscriminate capability is only necessary for conducting broad, indiscriminate surveillance without authorization.

    Further, the CIA's program pre-emptively-- and without the knowledge or approval of any court or any cause whatsoever-- puts its ears in everyone's house. This is done through a deliberate deception practiced upon every consumer, not one of whom would knowingly purchase the compromised device (or one capable of being compromised).

    The program pre-emptively imposes nakedness upon a broad swath of people on the proposition that no one will look. We are to imagine that the saintly and law-respecting folks who work at the spy agency will forbear looking and listening through these pre-installed peepholes without gaining probable cause to do so in some other way, and then seeking and getting permission from an institutionally-skeptical higher authority.

    The rationale and the mythology supporting it are bs on stilts. There is no valid purpose for a program like this; the program's offense is complete before and without regard to whether anyone is actually spied upon. In its pernicious essence, this program is indistinguishable from chipping everyone like a dog.

    BUT HEY! It's the government doing it, so that means it's legal, right?

    What's more, this panopticon program is of the same character as the broad, hoover-it-all-up NSA surveillance that has been approved in its indiscriminate darkness by the FISA courts and a couple of select congressional committees and the last several presidents, too. So, again, it must be what the law allows, right?

    Well, that's actually going to be the unspoken functional conclusion, or underpinning, of most of the discourse concerning the CIA peep-hole program. Some talk of the Fourth Amendment will take place but it won't amount to much, because too many Americans abdicate their power and responsibility and answer "Yes" to those six questions with which I began this commentary. I hope you won't do that.

    I STRONGLY urge everyone to instead complete the picture I'm painting with a careful read-through of the short and straightforward study found here. I urge you all to recognize that what you read there is 100% fact.

    I also urge you all to understand that what you read there is utterly unknown by pretty-much 100% of the lawyers who take on Fourth Amendment violations. More to the point, what you read there is utterly unknown by pretty-much 100% of the lawyers who don't take on Fourth Amendment violations, even when they have happened, because they don't know this material and therefore don't know that a violation has occurred.

    The reason for that latter problem is that lawyers, more than any others, are conditioned to the rule-of-law-crushing habit of deference to government and its courts as the determiners of what is and isn't the law. Lawyers are trained to answer "Yes" to each of the six questions with which I began this commentary.

    So, being victims of bad habits and deep conditioning, lawyers don't generally look past what the government and its courts have said when forming their own opinions of what is and is not actually the law. It's up to the rest of us to know the truth and set these folks straight.

    The exposé of the CIA's pernicious panopticon program offers a great chance for accomplishing that virtuous educational task. Send this material to everyone that you know, especially "public interest" and "Constitutional" law firms.

    Remind these folks of a truth Thomas Jefferson articulated on all our behalf:

    "A free people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate."

    and,

    BTW, there isn't likely to be a judge in the country who knows the truth about the Fourth Amendment any more than the lawyers do. Nor are there any journalists who know it, even though the Fourth Amendment and the government's various illegal search and seizure practices will be the subjects of much scribbling for a while now, as it has been many times before.

    The judges may not be very accessible for education except when cases begin being brought before them by lawyers who have become able to knowledgeably brief the subject. But journalists can be made aware just from having an ear to the ground, if the ground has a bit of a knowing buzz going on. You can make that happen, if you'll do some buzzing.
    This link for this post likely will expire soon but it is http://losthorizons.com/MidEditionUpdate.htm
    Last edited by mikewhitney; 03-18-2017, 01:34 PM.

  • #2
    Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
    I thought this was interesting
    Remind these folks of a truth Thomas Jefferson articulated on all our behalf:

    "A free people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate."

    Actually:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    Rights come from God, or God given laws of nature.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • #3
      Legally speaking, something is deemed legal because the government says it is legal. That, however, has nothing whatsoever to do with whether something is right or wrong.

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        Legally speaking, something is deemed legal because the government says it is legal. That, however, has nothing whatsoever to do with whether something is right or wrong.
        What is the government basis for legality? Is it not Constitution? What happens when, as is the case today, "courts refuse to obey the Constitution . . ." The question becomes blurred. If the Constitution is the basis for law, then government actions in conflict with the Constitution are not legal. It is indeed a valid question. Murder is not legal. Abortion is legal. These according to the law. They are inconsistent so the question is quite blurred today.
        Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
          What is the government basis for legality? Is it not Constitution? What happens when, as is the case today, "courts refuse to obey the Constitution . . ." The question becomes blurred. If the Constitution is the basis for law, then government actions in conflict with the Constitution are not legal. It is indeed a valid question. Murder is not legal. Abortion is legal. These according to the law. They are inconsistent so the question is quite blurred today.
          The Constitution was a treaty between the governors and the governed.
          The U.S. Government quit honoring that treaty a long time ago - the government is now an oligarchy and no longer a democratic republic.
          Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
            What is the government basis for legality? Is it not Constitution? What happens when, as is the case today, "courts refuse to obey the Constitution . . ." The question becomes blurred. If the Constitution is the basis for law, then government actions in conflict with the Constitution are not legal. It is indeed a valid question. Murder is not legal. Abortion is legal. These according to the law. They are inconsistent so the question is quite blurred today.
            I was speaking in broader terms than just the U.S. As for the Constitution... keep in mind that we have one branch in charge of interpreting it and deciding what is and is not constitutional. So in effect the government is deciding what is legal.

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              I was speaking in broader terms than just the U.S. As for the Constitution... keep in mind that we have one branch in charge of interpreting it and deciding what is and is not constitutional. So in effect the government is deciding what is legal.
              Again I say, "If the Constitution is the basis for law, then government actions in conflict with the Constitution are not legal. It is indeed a valid question. Murder is not legal. Abortion is legal. These according to the law. They are inconsistent so the question is quite blurred today." If they are falsely interpreting what is legal, then what is 'really' legal after all.
              Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by seer View Post
                Actually:

                We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

                Rights come from God, or God given laws of nature.
                Not your god, seer.

                “Thomas Jefferson [the author of those words] was raised as an Anglican, but was influenced by English deists such as Bolingbroke and Shaftesbury. Thus in the spirit of the Enlightenment, he made the following recommendation to his nephew Peter Carr in 1787: "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

                https://www.monticello.org/site/rese...igious-beliefs

                Thomas Jefferson also advocated separation of Church and State, which has been incorporated into the US legal system...so keep your god to yourself.
                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  Not your god, seer.

                  “Thomas Jefferson [the author of those words] was raised as an Anglican, but was influenced by English deists such as Bolingbroke and Shaftesbury. Thus in the spirit of the Enlightenment, he made the following recommendation to his nephew Peter Carr in 1787: "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

                  https://www.monticello.org/site/rese...igious-beliefs

                  Thomas Jefferson also advocated separation of Church and State, which has been incorporated into the US legal system...so keep your god to yourself.
                  Tass, I did say it necessarily was the Christian God (though as we have discussed he borrowed from Locke which was the Christian God), but that our rights came from God. Not man. And since our rights do come from God (a religious principle) you can not divorce the source of our rights from the political since we have no rights apart from God. And as we have discussed in the past Jefferson had no problem using biblical morality when he revised the Virginia Law Code.

                  From you link:

                  Jefferson believed in the existence of a Supreme Being who was the creator and sustainer of the universe and the ultimate ground of being.
                  Last edited by seer; 03-19-2017, 10:30 AM.
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    Thomas Jefferson also advocated separation of Church and State, which has been incorporated into the US legal system...so keep your god to yourself.
                    What exactly was the "separation of Church and State" that Jefferson advocated?
                    Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Yes, no and maybe.

                      Depends on your view of governance - but those who accept that authority flows from the governed would agree that law too, flows from the governed. You yes, it's legal or not because the government says so but if what the government says is not consistent with what the governed consent to then no, it's not even though government says it is. Then you get into the murky stuff where it just depends - that is usually cleared up by which entity hollers more.
                      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                      My Personal Blog

                      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                      Quill Sword

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                        What exactly was the "separation of Church and State" that Jefferson advocated?
                        Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists refers to building a wall of separation between Church & State. As well, although the term “separation of Church and State” never appears in the Constitution itself, the Supreme Court as the ultimate interpreter of Federal Constitutional law, ruled in the case of Everson v. Board of Education that “the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’”
                        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Tass, I did say it necessarily was the Christian God (though as we have discussed he borrowed from Locke which was the Christian God), but that our rights came from God. Not man. And since our rights do come from God (a religious principle) you can not divorce the source of our rights from the political since we have no rights apart from God. And as we have discussed in the past Jefferson had no problem using biblical morality when he revised the Virginia Law Code.
                          All of which is irrelevant given that every ruling since the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman has confirmed, in the view of the highest court in the land, that the Constitution effectively created a separation of church and state.
                          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion nor prohibit the free excercise thereof" Isn't that fairly clear? I thought it was left to each state. Well it was.
                            A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
                            George Bernard Shaw

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                              Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists refers to building a wall of separation between Church & State. As well, although the term “separation of Church and State” never appears in the Constitution itself, the Supreme Court as the ultimate interpreter of Federal Constitutional law, ruled in the case of Everson v. Board of Education that “the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’”
                              You seem to have sidestepped my question by answering the one you wish I had asked. "What exactly was the "separation of Church and State" that Jefferson advocated?" What did he advocate? Here is the pertinent sentence in that brief letter.

                              Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.


                              In other words what Jefferson advocated was exactly what the Constitution gives us. "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This is nothing like what the activist judicial branch has given us today.
                              Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                              16 responses
                              142 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post One Bad Pig  
                              Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                              53 responses
                              382 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Mountain Man  
                              Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                              25 responses
                              112 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                              33 responses
                              197 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Roy
                              by Roy
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                              84 responses
                              364 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post JimL
                              by JimL
                               
                              Working...
                              X