Re: I don't know who's leaking this stuff...

David Dean wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>  Chris Wright <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>>>    That is a public place, no one has an expectation of privacy at 
>>> Yankee Stadium.
>> Depends on your personal description of the word.
> 
>    No, it is settled law. The Supreme Court has ruled on it.

Its a legal argument, nothing is decided.  All based on prior fact, i.e. 
history, ancient history.
Laws change, as do the time we live in.
Not at the same rate.

The argument you offer is what 'if' the data is misused.

Lawyers could argue probably cause as grounds for the argument.

> 
>> A bunch of old farts not in touch with the real world of 'today'
> 
>    They are 1/3 of our government. They are an essential check and 
> balance to the power of the President and Congress. The need to be in 
> touch with the law and the Constitution, not the whims of the people. 
> You really don't understand our system of government if you dismiss them 
> out of hand like that.
> 

Not dismissing them at all, just their unwillingness to keep up with the 
'changes over time'.
Far too much is made out of politics than common sense.

It will take another disaster to wake up all those in both our counties 
who have their heads firmly inserted in the past.
By then it will be too late.

If you have nothing to hide, then what do you stand to lose?
You gain security?
You lose what?


Weird how people can accept breaking the 10 commandments which have been 
around for a few years more, but can't agree to changes in a document 
which has been around for a fraction of the time.
Ok, so a majority might not be religious, but is there no where in your 
mind that says that the constitution might be wrong/outdated or open to 
change?

Does the 'Right to bear arms' include Nukes? Or does that little section 
refer to the caliber and type of gun around at the time.
Can I make it known that I have a couple of megatons worth of Nuke sat 
in my house in Texas to defend myself? ( I have a red phone connected 
directly to my tenants)
Or is it that we chose how 'we' want to apply each section as it suits us.
I'm sure when they wrote that part about 'arms' they didn't envisage 
half the weapons and firepower that would be available today. But rules 
were made in parallel to the 'constitution' to prevent that sort of action.