That's not how the clandestine agencies like Congress to write laws though. They love to live in the spaces and gray areas created by vaguely written laws.
Every branch of the government has a duty to uphold the constitution including its protections. Further the constitution is the law suggesting it’s only their responsibility to uphold some laws is the root of a great number of issues.
Insane framing of “we know the spirit of the law but we are going to do everything we can to skirt it”.
>The FBI’s job is only to investigate to the maximum extent of the law
Wrong, according to the FBI itself:
“The mission of the FBI is to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution of the United States.”
https://www.fbi.gov/about/faqs/what-is-the-mission-of-the-fb...
Pray tell, how does warrantless spying on citizens help to uphold the 4th amendment?
This email just goes to show what this actually means in practice.
The Majority Report had an expert on to talk about it, you can google it, its the first link under "majority report FISA"
Should we stop requiring employers to deduct income tax? For the record, I think the answer to both is yes, but I’m in the minority.
Requiring employers to deduct employee's pay for income taxes notifies the employee in question before it is done.
The notice is the important bit here.
I bet that if you put a notice of FISA data collection on someone's pay stub, it's unlikely they would even notice.
Equating the two is just a sad attempt at white washing
The relation between employer and employee is usually less anonymous than that between a tech platform and some random visitor.
That doesn’t help the poor folks who followed the old rules and are now ensured in the executive branch illegally pulling the rug out from under them, but it seems like the ATF is routinely losing when brought to trial.
While the current admin seems to love changing the meaning of words to suit their whims, I think, in general, the courts have pretty consistently sided with the intended meaning at the time of legislation (text and tradition) rather than the politically motivated meaning that’s been conjured up in the last 36-months (novel legal theory garbage).
And the problem with that is that by the time you get to the point where case is dismissed, it is already a major disruption to one's life. The legal fees alone can be effectively punitive for many people to begin with, and then if you actually get arrested and detained, it's straight up financial ruin. Not to mention reputational damage stemming from stuff like this even if the case is eventually dropped.
Now the FBI Deputy Director says: "I urge everyone to continue to look for ways to appropriately use US person queries to advance the mission" - that is, literally think about ways to use this power to spy on U.S. citizens. This absolutely is and should be big news.
Even if you're fine with them spreading their net to the legally allowed limit rather than what's necessary, lying to Congress seems like nefariousness.
Not sure why this is news.
Conforming to the “legal requirements” means also conforming to the constitution, it doesn’t matter if someone writes a law that says you don’t need to obey the constitution, that just means the law itself is illegal.
It’s amazing how government officials interpret the 2nd amendment (giving the right to bare arms in the absence of a formal militia to mean everyone can have guns in of all kinds in all cases, but then turn around and say the 4th amendment does not grant any rights at all)
According to you. The courts think it's perfectly constitutional.
Seizing property to turn it over to a private developer instead of for public use is a valid use of the government's eminent domain power (Kelo v. New London).
Congress regulating farmers growing wheat on their own property for their own and their animals' consumption on the grounds is a valid regulation of interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause (Wickard v. Filburn).
Allowing Congress to delegate legislative power to the executive branch, in clear violation of Article I of the Constitution, as long as Congress gives an "intelligible principle" (Hampton Co. v. United States).
Ruling that exercising your Fifth Amendment right not to be a witness against yourself can be taken as evidence of guilt (Salinas v. Texas).
The Constitution, afaik, is silent on the matter of shirt sleeves.
However, a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
The crime is that the States have given up on forming those well-regulated militias and that we have a continuous standing army in a Military-Industrial-Congressional complex whose corruption boggles the mind.
The States claim that state-run National Guard units are the "well-regulated militias". Their claim is wrong, but not for the reason you imply. The reason their claim is wrong is that the 2nd Amendment is about the right of the people to keep and bear arms to resist a tyrannical government--any tyrannical government: not just the Federal government, but the State governments as well. If the States can organize a militia and then say individual citizens no longer have the right to keep and bear arms outside that organized militia, that defeats the purpose of the 2nd Amendment just as much as the Federal government having a standing army and claiming it's an organized militia.
The second amendment is entirely about state militias, and anyone claiming it's related to resisting a tyrannical government hasn't actually read the documents they claim to have read.
Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution outlines militias as a duty of congress, and the function of the militias (note: resisting a tyrannical government is not listed!)
Article II, Section 2 defines the President as the commander in chief of the military and militias.
The above is what the second amendment is making reference to.
There are following acts of congress that clarify who gets to be in a militia: the militia acts of 1792, 1795, 1862 and 1903. These allow for people of different races and genders to join militias.
The militia act of 1903 clarifies that there are different types of state militias: formal and informal. Formal is things like the National Guard, Texas Rangers, etc. Informal is - in times of emergency, the state can basically just round up a posse for the outlined purposes in Article 1, Section 8. The second amendment does guarantee personal firearm ownership under this possibility, connected to possible service in an informal militia.
You're welcome.
Sometimes state, sometimes federal. This is why all parties are trying to pack the courts with ideologues of various leanings.
The point is that the original US Constitution, as well as the Bill of Rights, was worked on and ratified by the same people who worked on their states' constitutions at that time, and you can, in general, see very clear parallels between state and federal constitutions when it comes to rights. So, given that at least some state constitutions from that same period explicitly spell out individual right to keep and bear arms, I find it dubious that it was not one of the considerations when they adopted the same right on the federal level. The fact that the verbiage of 2A cites militia as a justification implies that this is the one they thought most important, but not that there weren't any others; and, of course, the verbiage doesn't actually condition RKBA on militia membership in plain reading.
There are also letters and other discussions from that time that, on the whole, make it fairly clear that militia was understood as including everyone (and not just those states might choose to designate as such), and that the right was thus really meant to be universal.
What state constitutions of the day say something different than what is written in the federal constitution? I am interested in looking into it at least.
ETA: I looked into it. Your argument only seems to have Pennsylvania as a leg to stand on, through the participation of Ben Franklin, and even that is flawed according to historians:
https://journals.psu.edu/pmhb/article/download/59337/59064/0
I disagree, and I'm certainly not the only one; there has been a lot of literature on this. Obviously we're not going to resolve that here. However, I will offer a few comments, since you have presumed to imply that I have not actually read the documents in question.
First, it seems odd for you to say that the second amendment is entirely about state militias, and then refer to the Constitution, which is a Federal document, and which, as we will see below, contains provisions for Federal actions regarding the Militia, not just state actions.
Next, Article I, Section 8 says that Congress shall have the power:
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
Note that it does not say "create" the Militia. It assumes that "the Militia" is an already existing thing, and then says that Congress may provide for "calling forth" this already existing thing for certain purposes. It also says Congress may provide for other things regarding the Militia, but it does not say that the Militia may only do the things that Congress has provided for, or that the Militia only consists of those people Congress organizes by legislation. In fact, it says explicitly that Congress may provide for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States. That means there can be other Parts which are not so employed.
Article II, Section 2 says:
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"
In other words, the President is not the Commander in Chief of the Militia all the time or of all the Militia; he is only Commander in Chief of the Militia who are in the actual Service of the United States, while they are so serving. That means there can be Militia who are not in such service, and whom the President is not the Commander in Chief of.
In short, the powers the Constitution grants Congress and the President over the Militia are qualified and limited, not absolute.
That's not what the 2nd amendment says. It says "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". That doesn't mean that if the government decides to organize a formal militia, people's individual right to keep and bear arms goes away; that would defeat the whole purpose of the amendment, which is to enable the people to resist a tyrannical government, just as the Americans resisted British tyranny using their own individual arms. In other words, the "well-regulated militia" is the entire body of armed citizens. The "well-regulated" part means that the citizens themselves are supposed to regulate their own and each other's use of arms so that they are not used to promote tyranny instead of resist it.
That doesn't really jive with the president being explicitly legally empowered to call upon the militia to quell insurrection.
Parroting that nonsense, when everyone knows that the reason they want unrestricted access to guns is just that they're idiots that made having guns their personality.
The 2nd amendment says "A well regulated Militia", but the "I need guns to compensate for personal issues" people say you can't have any regulations or rules that would in anyway require the to actually be mentally or physically capable of supporting a free State. Again, the group of people arguing for the definition of the 2nd amendment that gives unrestricted access to guns are the people who routinely and consistently opposed the "free State" the 2nd amendment is ostensibly for, hell they generally oppose the 1st, 5th, 8th, 15th, 24th, and 28th amendments, so any proclaimed absolutism about their support for the constitution is dubious at best. I'd make a claim based on current commentary that these groups don't support any of the the constitution at all given their repeated and explicit disdain for articles 1 through 3 that define the core of the us government.
This trips up a certain segment of the populace, though, if we take your explanation at face value.
In many states and locales, the citizens have regulated their own and each other's use of arms (I disagree with your limitation of 'not used to promote tyranny' - that is not a limitation present in the wording). They've delegated that regulation to their state or locale, by means of voting and legislation.
And then they get told they can't.
So it's "well-regulated", but "not that way"?
I didn't mean to imply that that is the only regulation citizens should exercise over each other's use of arms. Obviously citizens should also be regulating each other's use of arms to prevent private crime, since that is also a threat to the security of a free state.
> They've delegated that regulation to their state or locale, by means of voting and legislation.
First, no such delegation can violate the 2nd Amendment, since the Constitution, as amended, is the supreme law of the land. It limits how much citizens can delegate.
Second, what happens if the government they have delegated to becomes tyrannical, and stays that way despite changes in voting and legislation? What is the citizens' last resort? To resist the tyrannical government using their own individually borne arms.
In other words, any such delegation can always be revoked, and the citizens have to have some last resort way of making the revocation good if the government refuses to accept it.
> And then they get told they can't.
Nobody has told them that. See above.
Literally they did exactly. People voted for and passed laws that regulated arms.
Idiots want to play with toys and got those regulations removed, because nothing says "well regulated militia" like alcoholics and racists with automatic weapons.
It's amazing the same people arguing "the government has no right to take away my unregulated and unnecessary guns" also argue the same government does get to regulate bodily autonomy, religion, etc