Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Many Of You May Be Interested In What THIS Guy Has To Say, Re: FISA/NSA/Snowden... [View all]Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)52. We as a Party have to rise up against it.
We have to stand for the principles that are contained in the Bill of Rights. We have to stand against it, not join with them. Instead, we run from principle because if we stand up for it we might be labeled as soft on crime, soft on Terror, soft on drugs, or whatever.
We have to stand against this crap as a party. The Democrats in the house should have voted en masse for the Amash Amendment totally defunding the NSA programs. Instead we split, and gave the Authoritarian jackasses the win, if only barely.
Just pointing our fingers at the Republicans is not a bad way to start, but we have to go beyond that to get where we need to be.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
166 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Many Of You May Be Interested In What THIS Guy Has To Say, Re: FISA/NSA/Snowden... [View all]
WillyT
Aug 2013
OP
Have at it! Exactly which con law profs & their credentials & opinions on the subject.
Divernan
Aug 2013
#11
I will ask you as I asked another DUer, how much background do you have in constituational law/
JDPriestly
Aug 2013
#116
With that background, it should be clear that the SCOTUS says that the Constitution
JDPriestly
Aug 2013
#150
But there is no harm in pointing out the flaws in the reasoning of the Supreme Court
JDPriestly
Aug 2013
#157
But the fact that the Supreme Court has declared something OK by the Constitution simply
JDPriestly
Aug 2013
#160
Corporations are people only as a legal construct. But groups of people have the right to free
JDPriestly
Aug 2013
#166
But there is also plenty that we know. And what we actually know is bad enough.
sabrina 1
Aug 2013
#21
The facts and evidence have been examined by a large number of credible people
Maedhros
Aug 2013
#60
Lol!! I actually took you seriously upthread. But now I get it, you're a comedian!!
sabrina 1
Aug 2013
#106
You don't want 'Busies' dragged into this?? Really?? Well, then we are on the same side.
sabrina 1
Aug 2013
#100
Not sure how you gathered that... but no, I don't think I am that person you described.
cui bono
Aug 2013
#104
So what you're effectively saying is that Obama has no power to change anything, is that correct?
AppleBottom
Aug 2013
#136
Ahhh I see, so it doesn't matter who you vote for and your support of Obama's fascist
AppleBottom
Aug 2013
#140
I note you don't actually post even one peer of Pyle's as you claim you could.
Bluenorthwest
Aug 2013
#53
good question for those who swear spying is okay as long as it is democrats doing it. If the court
liberal_at_heart
Aug 2013
#32
K&R. Now that is how a constitutional scholar and professor thinks about these issues.
JDPriestly
Aug 2013
#33
sadly, because this article clearly names the Republicans as perps, and not "both sides"
librechik
Aug 2013
#50
As Democrats our targets should be our congressmen that voted against our interests [n/t]
Maedhros
Aug 2013
#61
"When the secret court was created in 1978, it was meant to authorize targeted searches, but..."
GiaGiovanni
Aug 2013
#54
I did a little hunting on this the other day myself..and Prof Pyle missed a big old target
Peacetrain
Aug 2013
#59