6 ms·

Constitutional law is so much more complicated than, "this is what the document says". What is happening is here is reprehensible, but I don't think you will fi

by cjeane 15y ago

Constitutional law is so much more complicated than, "this is what the document says". What is happening is here is reprehensible, but I don't think you will find any defense against it in due process.

nika 15y ago
Actually, the document was written with the intention that anyone could read it and easily tell if their government was violating it or not. There have been a lot of people making up a body of work commonly called "Constitutional law" but much of that body of work seems to serve the purpose of trying to say that you can't just read it. But if you read it, it is very clear. "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." It is cut and dry. All of these siezures are not taking evidence, they are stealing property. Money is property, it is not evidence of any crime, especially when it is electronic funds in a bank account.
- cube13 15y ago
  >"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." This doesn't mean what you think it means. It doesn't mean that the government can't take your stuff, full stop. It means that the government can't take your stuff without due cause and process. Both of which were followed in this case, it appears. The indictment was posted here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2451482 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2451482
- malnourish 15y ago
  Constitutional studies largely exist because of the 14th Amendment and the necessary and proper clause. They do confuse things a bit. Sometimes we can't rely on our elected officials, even though we should be able to; a SCotUS case might be the best way to change this.
smokeyj 15y ago
> Constitutional law is so much more complicated than, "this is what the document says". If you can't read the document and deduce it's meaning, why use this document? Is this an emperors clothe type of thing?
- samfoo 15y ago
  Because the world is a complicated place where a single (short) document is unlikely to fairly represent anything other than guiding principles. Having guiding principles is hugely important and valuable, just as giving people the leeway to make judgement calls on those principles is. Justice shouldn't be black and white.
  - nika 15y ago
    I don't think anyone denies that there are areas where the constitution is not sufficiently detailed. However, the constitution still says what it says, and many actions that are considered "legal" today do not fall into the areas of constitutional vagueness, but are simply laws that violate the constitution that have never been sufficiently challenged. The constitution is pretty black and white, and this is a good thing, because it means you can tell what is set out by it, and what is up to the legislature. All the areas where the constitution enumerated powers it gave the legislature a free hand to determine what is right. Thus for the areas that the constitution does address, it is pretty black and white and it is meant to be enforced by the people. ... and it really isn't hard to understand, nor does it require much interpretation. Just careful reading.
  - smokeyj 15y ago
    If constitutionality can't be deduced by the constitution, then what deduces it? The opinion of some judges? If our fate is in the hands of a few judges (it is), doesn't this void our "democratic principles"? I can't help but feel our understanding of government isn't much more than catch phrases and sentiment. Patriotism, we the people, one nation under god, the greater good, public servants, all total bs. If we criticized the processes of government like we did start-ups (such as the costs of value added), we'd be a whole lot wealthier. /rant

by cjeane 15y ago

nika 15y ago

Actually, the document was written with the intention that anyone could read it and easily tell if their government was violating it or not. There have been a lot of people making up a body of work commonly called "Constitutional law" but much of that body of work seems to serve the purpose of trying to say that you can't just read it. But if you read it, it is very clear. "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." It is cut and dry. All of these siezures are not taking evidence, they are stealing property. Money is property, it is not evidence of any crime, especially when it is electronic funds in a bank account.

cube13 15y ago
>"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." This doesn't mean what you think it means. It doesn't mean that the government can't take your stuff, full stop. It means that the government can't take your stuff without due cause and process. Both of which were followed in this case, it appears. The indictment was posted here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2451482 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2451482
malnourish 15y ago
Constitutional studies largely exist because of the 14th Amendment and the necessary and proper clause. They do confuse things a bit. Sometimes we can't rely on our elected officials, even though we should be able to; a SCotUS case might be the best way to change this.

smokeyj 15y ago

> Constitutional law is so much more complicated than, "this is what the document says". If you can't read the document and deduce it's meaning, why use this document? Is this an emperors clothe type of thing?

samfoo 15y ago
Because the world is a complicated place where a single (short) document is unlikely to fairly represent anything other than guiding principles. Having guiding principles is hugely important and valuable, just as giving people the leeway to make judgement calls on those principles is. Justice shouldn't be black and white.
- nika 15y ago
  I don't think anyone denies that there are areas where the constitution is not sufficiently detailed. However, the constitution still says what it says, and many actions that are considered "legal" today do not fall into the areas of constitutional vagueness, but are simply laws that violate the constitution that have never been sufficiently challenged. The constitution is pretty black and white, and this is a good thing, because it means you can tell what is set out by it, and what is up to the legislature. All the areas where the constitution enumerated powers it gave the legislature a free hand to determine what is right. Thus for the areas that the constitution does address, it is pretty black and white and it is meant to be enforced by the people. ... and it really isn't hard to understand, nor does it require much interpretation. Just careful reading.
- smokeyj 15y ago
  If constitutionality can't be deduced by the constitution, then what deduces it? The opinion of some judges? If our fate is in the hands of a few judges (it is), doesn't this void our "democratic principles"? I can't help but feel our understanding of government isn't much more than catch phrases and sentiment. Patriotism, we the people, one nation under god, the greater good, public servants, all total bs. If we criticized the processes of government like we did start-ups (such as the costs of value added), we'd be a whole lot wealthier. /rant