Habeas corpus is guaranteed to all people under US jurisdiction, not just citizens. Indeed, the very idea of detaining people without charge or legal representation runs counter to everything America is supposed to stand for.
Equal rights for all (and therefore, automatically, equal marriage rights) are guaranteed by the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
The First Amendment together with the 14th forbid government support of religion.
Privacy (and therefore abortion rights) are guaranteed by the 4th Amendment.
Free speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Protesting outside of tiny “free speech zones” is not equivalent to using a bullhorn outside of someone’s house: “My right to swing my arm ends where your nose begins.”
Also, refer to what the 9th Amendment says about rights.
In the Terri Schiavo case, separation of powers was violated by the Florida legislature by passing “Terri’s Law”, which was later struck down as unconsitutional. It was Republicans who violated the separation of powers in this case, and I suspect knowingly.
The point is that in America we have many rights, but in my experience the GOP are intent on restricting them. I don;t like it when rights are restricted. This is the chief reason I vote against the GOP: I believe rights and freedoms should be expanded.
A record of phone numbers called is not the same as listening to conversations. If it is, every phone company on earth violates your privacy every time they bill you.
Violating privacy would necessarily include disclosure to third parties. When the phone companies mail you a bill containing the phone numbers you call, including 1-900-spankme, they don’t share that information with anyone else, and certainly not the government. So, normally, the phone companies don’t violate any privacy rights unless they share that information with others (e.g. telemarketers buying that information)
Violating privacy would necessarily include disclosure to third parties. When the phone companies mail you a bill containing the phone numbers you call, including 1-900-spankme, they don’t share that information with anyone else, and certainly not the government. So, normally, the phone companies don’t violate any privacy rights unless they share that information with others (e.g. telemarketers buying that information)[/quote]
Excuse me, Jack, I have reviewed this thread and I didn’t see where anyone requested facts or logic, so please kindly piss off.
[quote]BellSouth claims the story’s assertion that it was under contract to provide massive call record data to the NSA is untrue.
“No such contract exists and we have not provided bulk customer calling records to the NSA,” the carrier said in a statement about the story, which appeared in the May 11 issue of USA Today.
BellSouth sent a letter to the president and publisher of USA Today, and the general counsel of Gannett Co., USA Today’s parent, “insisting” on a retraction, BellSouth spokesman Jeff Battcher said.
“We are insisting that the paper retract the false and unsubstantiatied statements that have been made regarding our company,” Battcher said. "They have offered no proof of either of those (contract and call record submission) claims.
“We have no contract with the NSA, never had a contract with the NSA, and have never provided the NSA with any information, ever,” Battcher concluded. [/quote]
Until shown a US Supreme Curt ruling stating otherwise, I will say that United States Constitutional Rights apply only to citizens of the United States of America and on territory of the United States of America.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Until shown a US Supreme Curt ruling stating otherwise, I will say that United States Constitutional Rights apply only to citizens of the United States of America and on territory of the United States of America.
Precedents otherwise…?[/quote]
You’re a few hundred years late. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the Constitution applies to persons within US jurisdiction.
But you know what IS screwed up is that corporations changed the interpretation of the US constitution in protecting “Persons” to also mean corporations (ie non-natural person). Thus, a company has 1st amendments rights, 4th amendments rights (think how a company can use it to withhold damning information).
JB -
I agree with your comments re: the “Legal Entity” status granted to corporations. I think this was done out of neccessacity for establishing responsibility for various acts and the resulting consequences of those acts. Just a guess…I am not a lawyer or legal expert.
I am interested in the ruling and its interpretations that you refer to in the 1st part of your comment. Terms such as “jusridiction” have an ambiguity built-in to them that is a lawyers pathway to litagation. I would like to see this clearly presented as relevant.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]JB -
I agree with your comments re: the “Legal Entity” status granted to corporations. I think this was done out of neccessacity for establishing responsibility for various acts and the resulting consequences of those acts. Just a guess…I am not a lawyer or legal expert.
I am interested in the ruling and its interpretations that you refer to in the 1st part of your comment. Terms such as “jusridiction” have an ambiguity built-in to them that is a lawyers pathway to litagation. I would like to see this clearly presented as relevant.[/quote]
Re corporations: historically, corporations were very limited in purpose and term of existence, that is very limited in capability. The classic example is that a corporation would be created to build a bridge and its charter limited the term of existence to 2 years and only to build a bridge. The argument is that the founders were well aware of the monopolistic government-sanctioned trading companies (think Canada and India) that became too powerful and unaccountable. For example, there was no such thing as limited liability. Many would argue that limited liability (ie stocks) promotes investment and expands the pool of available capital. I’m not per se against this kind of expansion. What seems problematic is that the unaccountability of corporations, which was an original fear, has been expanded. Giving corporations non-natural person statushood and protection under the US constitution seems entirely contrary to the original intent of the founders and adds to that problem. Eg In recent years, corporations have used the first amendment as a shield for false advertising.
Re: jurisdiction. The US constitution has been interpreted to apply to all persons within the limits of its sovereignty. This usually means on U.S. territory (including states, puerto rico, etc.). This has been established for a very long time (think foreign sailors jailed in NY)
Guantanamo is the obvious example why this line of thought becomes problematic. It’s funny how the government will concede that Guantanamo is Cuban territory which they’ve chosen to occupy for the past 50 years.
