[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Most elegant wording against privacy/law-enforcement "balance" (fwd)
Forwarded message:
> Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 18:31:49 -0800
> From: Tim May <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Most elegant wording against privacy/law-enforcement "balance"
> >Compromising the public's right to privacy gives away not only our own
> >rights, but those of our descendants. The government must make an
> >extraordinary case to justify undermining those rights, and so far it
> >has not done so.
>
> "So far it has not done so."
>
> This "argument based on utilitarian need" is at odds with the First
> Amendment.
It's at odds with the entire concept of 'inalienable rights' and 'government
instituted by the governed'.
> I am drawing the parallel with the Fourth deliberately: no amount of
> "study," even a study by such august persons as Denning and Baugh, could
> ever conclude that wholesale, unwarranted searches are permissable. The
> Fourth was put in just to stop such broad conclusions.
I would say more broadly the Constitution and in particular the Bill of
Rights was implimented to eliminate these issue from the federal level.
____________________________________________________________________
| |
| The most powerful passion in life is not love or hate, |
| but the desire to edit somebody elses words. |
| |
| Sign in Ed Barsis' office |
| |
| _____ The Armadillo Group |
| ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA |
| /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ |
| .', |||| `/( e\ |
| -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate |
| [email protected] |
| 512-451-7087 |
|____________________________________________________________________|