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]whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)156. Only the most obtuse don't understand this. K&R!
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