First Six Amendments Assume Government is Corrupt.

Driving along today, I started fiddling around with the radio stations when I came across this guy explaining what his law professor (Professor Cloud, I think) had explained to him: that the first six amendments are a unified body of logic, based on the assumption that government is bad.

You must also assume that government is your enemy.  That's right, assume that the government will trample your rights, target certain political and religious minorities, and come after you without probable cause (especially when they employ Rape-a-scan to gate rape you and your 6-year old at airports).

“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”
by Thomas Jefferson

Thus, the first six amendments were created.  So, the First amendment  guarantees free speech, free assembly, free religious expression, and freedom to petition.

However, what's to stop governments from coming after people who partake in these freedoms?  Nothing.

Hence, the creation of the second amendment: the right to bear arms. Why? To protect you from officials who overstep their boundaries.

But what happens when the police force show up at your door? The army? And, rest assured, they will if you dare to pull a gun on a fed. So, that's where the third amendment comes in, as it guarantees that the government will not house troops in your home or private property without your consent.

Nevertheless, who remembers the third amendment, right? No one.

That's where the 4th amendment comes in. So, when the government forgets the third amendment, and sends out the troops to invade your house, the 4th says they cannot go through your stuff. Uhm, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out if they kick your door down, they will go through your stuff.

Hence, the creation of the 5th amendment. Anyone who watches the boob tube remembers this one, because of the often recited phrase: "I plead the 5th."  The 5th also guarantees Americans the right to trial by Grand Jury.

Nevertheless, even if that indictment is obtained, the 6th amendment guarantees you the right to a judgement by a fully informed petit jury. Not only does this jury judge the individual facts, but can also judge the law, itself.

The bottom line is that even legally obtained power can, and more than likely will (to some degree) abuse that power and show utter disregard for constituted law and order.

Links:

Freedom Law Self-help law clinic and law library.

Read more...

U.S. Wants to Build New Safer Internet Infrastructure

Say good-bye to anonymity. The US is seriously considering building a new Internet infrastructure to prevent cyber attacks.


General Michael Hayden’s presentation begins at approximately 42:20 into the video.

Several current federal officials, including U.S. Cyber Command chief Gen. Keith Alexander, want a “.secure” network for critical services such as banking that would be walled off from the public Web. Unlike .com, .xxx and other new domains now proliferating the Internet, .secure would require visitors to use certified credentials for entry and would do away with users’ Fourth Amendment rights to privacy. Network operators in the financial sector, for example, would be authorized to scan account holders’ traffic content for signs of trouble.

Nations with fewer civil liberty protections, including China, use “deep packet inspection” to search all Internet traffic for viruses — as well as anti-government content, noted James Mulvenon, a China and cybersecurity specialist. Due to privacy laws, the United States cannot monitor private network traffic using this approach. Mulvenon questioned whether such restrictions give other nation states the upper hand in cyber defense. “We still believe that anonymity is possible,” he said of America’s attitude toward freedom of expression on the Internet.

Read more...

Sliding Further Down the Slippery Slope of Government Intrusion.

It's becoming increasingly apparent that we, the people are increasingly losing our right to be secure in our homes and in our persons.  In an ironic twist, just as we get the news that cops may be suspect in the Long Island serial killings (Of course, the NYPD denies this), the Indiana Supreme Court - in a decision that overturns centuries of common law - ruled, that residents have no right to resist the entry of police, without warrant.

This decision stems from a case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.  Dissenters, Justices Robert Rucker and  Brent Dickson said that they would have supported the ruling if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations.

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence." -- Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steven David

Another dissenting judge said,

“government agents may now enter their homes illegally – that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances.”

What did the three justices that ruled that police can break down the door of any home, if the situation warrants  (left to the arbitrary discretion of the police official)?   Well, they said residents can later protest the entry through the court system.  Kind of hard to do if you're dead, injured for life; not to mention, it's not going to bring back any loved ones who happen to wander into the line of fire during the warrant-less intrusion.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, 8-1, that police can enter our personal residences, without a warrant, if they smell marijuana, and simultaneously, hear the toilet flush. Why? There is a possibility that the flusher was getting rid of evidence. Now, this ruling is more specific, as it applies only to marijuana, that "dangerous" plant that I'm sure, saves more lives than it takes.  Nevertheless, once again, citizens are left dangling on a hook, at the mercy of arbitrary officials, and their arbitrary decisions.  The one and only dissenting judge, Justice Ruth Ginsburg, wrote,

“Police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant,”

and quoted in a New York Times article :

“How secure do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and, on hearing sounds indicative of things moving, forcibly enter and search for evidence of unlawful activity?”

The infringements to our freedoms are always cloaked under fear and national security; however, that cloak is getting more transparent every  day.  It's hard to deny the serial assaults on our Constitutional liberties and the ongoing attempt to erode the protections of  American citizens from wholly irrational government action, even if you buy into all of the propaganda.  The protection of the lives, health, and property of American citizens, and the preservation of good order and the public morals mean very little, if anything to those who reside at the top of our power structure.

Read more...