Shrink macrumors G3 Feb 26, 2011 8,929 1,727 New England, USA Oct 6, 2013 #51 koolmagicguy said: Yes, but the corrupt judicial branch wrote the law, so... Click to expand... I'm interested in the systemic corruption in the judicial branch to which you refer. Sources, please...
koolmagicguy said: Yes, but the corrupt judicial branch wrote the law, so... Click to expand... I'm interested in the systemic corruption in the judicial branch to which you refer. Sources, please...
Eraserhead macrumors G4 Nov 3, 2005 10,434 12,250 UK Oct 6, 2013 #52 zync said: I said that. I think the Supreme Court found those incorrectly. Click to expand... If the Supreme court came to a different conclusion from your conclusion (which I agree is sensible) then the wording is ambiguous isn't it? zync said: 17-45 covers all American males regardless of state. Click to expand... Fair enough. zync said: or that it's only a militia right. Click to expand... That is certainly ambiguous. zync said: Yes, but those restrictions were not legal. Click to expand... They were certainly found to be legal by the supreme court at one point - and another amendment had to be passed to get rid of them for good. ---------- Shrink said: I'm interested in the systemic corruption in the judicial branch to which you refer. Click to expand... I presume he's referring to the NSA's surveillance which is clearly unconstitutional as per the fourth amendment.
zync said: I said that. I think the Supreme Court found those incorrectly. Click to expand... If the Supreme court came to a different conclusion from your conclusion (which I agree is sensible) then the wording is ambiguous isn't it? zync said: 17-45 covers all American males regardless of state. Click to expand... Fair enough. zync said: or that it's only a militia right. Click to expand... That is certainly ambiguous. zync said: Yes, but those restrictions were not legal. Click to expand... They were certainly found to be legal by the supreme court at one point - and another amendment had to be passed to get rid of them for good. ---------- Shrink said: I'm interested in the systemic corruption in the judicial branch to which you refer. Click to expand... I presume he's referring to the NSA's surveillance which is clearly unconstitutional as per the fourth amendment.
zync macrumors 68000 Sep 8, 2003 1,807 38 Florida Oct 6, 2013 #53 Eraserhead said: If the Supreme court came to a different conclusion from your conclusion (which I agree is sensible) then the wording is ambiguous isn't it? Click to expand... They don't try cases simply on wording. Since they have the last word, they can really make whatever decision they'd like. Eraserhead said: That is certainly ambiguous. Click to expand... I disagree. They're independent clauses. Eraserhead said: They were certainly found to be legal by the supreme court at one point - and another amendment had to be passed to get rid of them for good. Click to expand... True. There was also a lot of ambiguity in how the laws existed and how they were applied in that time period, which was what I meant.
Eraserhead said: If the Supreme court came to a different conclusion from your conclusion (which I agree is sensible) then the wording is ambiguous isn't it? Click to expand... They don't try cases simply on wording. Since they have the last word, they can really make whatever decision they'd like. Eraserhead said: That is certainly ambiguous. Click to expand... I disagree. They're independent clauses. Eraserhead said: They were certainly found to be legal by the supreme court at one point - and another amendment had to be passed to get rid of them for good. Click to expand... True. There was also a lot of ambiguity in how the laws existed and how they were applied in that time period, which was what I meant.
jimthing macrumors 68020 Apr 6, 2011 2,217 1,351 Oct 20, 2013 #54 UK perspective, some parts of it may be of interest: "BBC HardTalk: Sir Malcolm Rifkind MP - Chairman - Intelligence and Security Committee UK (15/10/13)" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqkZN8dmflM Rifkind makes some interesting points in relation to Snowden and press releases, along with some deeper perspective to global security issues in relation to the role of modern intelligence agencies.
UK perspective, some parts of it may be of interest: "BBC HardTalk: Sir Malcolm Rifkind MP - Chairman - Intelligence and Security Committee UK (15/10/13)" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqkZN8dmflM Rifkind makes some interesting points in relation to Snowden and press releases, along with some deeper perspective to global security issues in relation to the role of modern intelligence agencies.