Social media password, search history could be required to buy firearm in NY
nbc26.com
nbc26.com
There are probably reasons why it's a horrible idea, but I think that legislators should be subjected to laws they write affecting other people. Want to require drug tests for welfare recipients? Then we should also require drug tests for congress. Want to add social media purity tests before gun purchases? Don't let anyone vote yes on the bill without publishing their private Facebook messages. Government employees furloughed due to lack of a budget? Don't pay the people that failed to pass a budget.
Understand that if a bill passes then all provisions and portions of the bill are approved, including any riders attached to the bill (and there are often many). For many people in Congress, the reason to vote NO on a bill is not because the bill is an awful or terrible idea (many times the bill makes sense and would be beneficial), but because the author of the bill added in unnecessary restrictions or budget kickbacks to the bill or in riders to unfairly benefit a group that is sponsoring the bill.
If you think our government's problems are bad, you should see their solutions.
Perhaps someone should amend that bill to also apply to motor vehicle ownership.
At the rate Facebook is going, this should just be "Authorize with Facebook and we'll do the rest"
"The first, the second amendment, the fifth amendment, the fourth amendment, and the 14th amendment," Tresmond said.
The 3rd is outdated (the US army has very expensive military bases), 4th is clearly attacked through mass surveillance and border searched, 5th is invalidated by civil forfeiture (which arguably violates the "just" terms), 6th is partially invalidated because of how overworked courts are and the existence of secret courts invalidates public trials, 7th is somewhat outdated because ignores inflation and thus further overworks the courts (requiring 6-member jury trials for all civil suits over $20), 8th is blatantly disregarded by many courts who routinely place excessive bail (hence the need for bail bonds) and cruel and unusual punishments are inflicted in prisons all the time.
Depending on your political view you can argue whether or not the 9th and 10th amendments are being attacked by overzealous government. But at the very least, it's in dispute.
I don't care what century I live in, I'd rather have the military living in bases than my house.
The 3rd amendment has never been used in any Supreme Court decisions, and in fact has only ever been used in a single appeals case in 1982[1] (thus there is only one instance of precedence for this amendment -- not to mention that the judge and appeals judge already accepted the Petitioners' argument under the 14th amendment).
I think that a part of the constitution that has only ever been used once, and was based primarily of a fear of a repeat of one of the Intolerable Acts in the 18th Century is hardly a relevant amendment.