Leaked: Info on US Data Collection Programs

[Gaidin]

Yea but there's territory and Territory. Guam is a Territory. Florida is a State that is a territory of the US.

Had the idea of distinguishing two concepts by using one with a capital letter and one without been invented when Congress made the decision to call said regions Territories?

Because if simple contextual use isn't good enough for you to tell the difference between a word's definitions and which one is being used I have to figure out another way to get the point across. This is the easiest way to do it.

[Knife]

The so-called "Supremacy Clause" ruled the Federal constitution the Supreme Court of the land. It is absurd to say that, taking that literally, it implies secession is impossible.

And the Confederate Secession War ("Civil War" is a clearly false name for it) is of no authority whatsoever in terms of law. In terms of how governments behave it affects a lot, but that is a different concept from legality.

Supremacy deals with nullification, where as Article 3 holds all States to Federal law and Federal courts. The war plainly settled the issue but if you want court cases, Texas V White, after the war by Federal courts, SCOTUS at that, held that the secession was null and States do not have the right to seceded. And what's with the 'clearly false name for it' in regards to the American Civil War. At this point, there really has only been one, so no confusion there. I tend to like the 'War of Southern aggression' myself but it was the American Civil War.

[Carinthium]

Somewhat hurried in my responses right now.

Let me get this straight - you're OK with the US conquering and confiscating land, but you're opposed to the peaceful purchase of land? What the fuck are you smoking?

Again - point to where an exchange of something in return for land is PROHIBITED in the constitution. Seriously, quote me the passage.

Meanwhile - the Federal government is CLEARLY permitted to engaged in treaties with other nations.
Meanwhile - Article I Section 8 CLEARLY gives Congress the ability to regulate trade with foreign nations, and you already conceded that Congress was on board with the Louisiana Purchase.
Meanwhile - Article IV Section 3 CLEARLY states "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States" which sounds to me like Congress DOES have the authority to buy territory.

Again, I fail to see where you have supported your claim that somehow the Louisiana Purchase was an illegal transaction. As Congress approved the purchase and approved the funds this would seem entirely legitimate.

There is a difference between being able to regulate commerce with foreign nations, being able to engage in commerce and being able to regulate trade. Only one of them involves the buying of territory in it's literal meaning.

The Louisana area was not U.S territory prior to the purchase, so was not covered by Article IV Section 3.

And this is bad because... ?

Look, the fact that Jefferson struggled with this is probably a good thing, the world would probably be a better place if more people actually gave a damn about the morality or legality of their actions. That doesn't mean that his end conclusion was wrong even if he changed his mind from a prior time. Being capable of change is a sign of intelligence and maturity, not some inherent sign of a great moral failing.

Jefferson was not swayed by his principles, I am arguing, by any "rational" argument (that is, an argument that is legitimate by the argumentative rules he held pre-purchase) but by pragmatic considerations. I doubt Jefferson would have considered Constitution-breaking acceptable based on pragmatic considerations, or that pragmatism played a role in interpreting the Constitution, prior to the purchase.

Being so swayed by pragmatic considerations, he was thus acting like a hypocrite and not like a man persuaded by proper argument. The end quote reinforces that, as he tries to justify it to himself rather than holding his head high (metaphorically) and saying it was clearly constitutional.

Because if simple contextual use isn't good enough for you to tell the difference between a word's definitions and which one is being used I have to figure out another way to get the point across. This is the easiest way to do it.

I don't know how well you've been keeping track, but we are currently arguing about the LITERAL meaning of the words. Contextual information does not affect literal meaning.

Supremacy deals with nullification, where as Article 3 holds all States to Federal law and Federal courts. The war plainly settled the issue but if you want court cases, Texas V White, after the war by Federal courts, SCOTUS at that, held that the secession was null and States do not have the right to seceded. And what's with the 'clearly false name for it' in regards to the American Civil War. At this point, there really has only been one, so no confusion there. I tend to like the 'War of Southern aggression' myself but it was the American Civil War.

There is such a thing as a mis-ruling- unless you're going to say the Constitution is whatever the Courts say it is, you have to concede that much. Both the War (settling issues by war is nowhere in United States law) and the Court case are thus irrelevant.

[Terralthra]

There is no such thing as a literal meaning of a word, divorced from context.

[Knife]

There is such a thing as a mis-ruling- unless you're going to say the Constitution is whatever the Courts say it is, you have to concede that much. Both the War (settling issues by war is nowhere in United States law) and the Court case are thus irrelevant.

And we're back to 'I don't agree with it therefore it must be a misruling' argument. That is a political statement, not a legal one, and you're on and on about legal issues not political. And whether you like it or not, any chance at legitimacy the South could have had died when Lee surrendered the Southern Army. Wars to settle issues, or do you think the lack of a mechanism to seceded in the Constitution would have meant Jake or Shit if the South did win?

[Carinthium]

Terallthra- Then what do you think dictionaries are full of? If a dictionary definition can exist, why can an equivalent (adapted for time period obviously) be used for literal interpretation?

Knife- No, my argument is not "I disagree, therefore misruling." I am demonstrating the possibility of a misruling (which you reject) to reinforce my arguments that it is the case.

Your words clearly imply you are using a different definition of "legitimacy" from me. What do you mean by it?

[Terralthra]

Dictionaries are context. They provide a time, a place, are in a specified language/language community, and define words in terms of other words.

This is basic linguistics. Like, pre-101 level.

[Carinthium]

I'm a bit rushed for a full reply right now, but just to make things clear- are you disputing the very possibility of a literal interpretation?

[Broomstick]

Again, I fail to see where you have supported your claim that somehow the Louisiana Purchase was an illegal transaction. As Congress approved the purchase and approved the funds this would seem entirely legitimate.

There is a difference between being able to regulate commerce with foreign nations, being able to engage in commerce and being able to regulate trade. Only one of them involves the buying of territory in it's literal meaning.

So one of them DOES pertain to purchasing territory.

What's the difference between France selling 5,000 tons of widgets to the US and selling a block of land to the US? They're both commerce. They're both trade.

You're just pissy because Jefferson came to a different conclusion than you did.

[LaCroix]

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States

(emphasis mine)

Also, this very clearly states that the territory is a property belonging to the United States. Property can be traded, trade means "engage in commerce", so you don't really have a leg to stand on...

[Carinthium]

The Constitution of the United States authorises Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations. This does not imply engaging in commerce. It is also worth pointing out that it is debatable if the purchase of government land comes under "commerce" or not, whereas it clearly comes under "trade".

To make things clear, I don't think Congress has the power to buy things full stop, whether from France or anybody else. However impractical this may seem, when one looks at the enummerated list of powers it is the only logical conclusion regarding a literal interpretation.

Also, this very clearly states that the territory is a property belonging to the United States. Property can be traded, trade means "engage in commerce", so you don't really have a leg to stand on...

That would apply if the United States were SELLING LAND. This is BUYING LAND.

[LaCroix]

That would apply if the United States were SELLING LAND. This is BUYING LAND.

That's where you draw the line ?
This is nonsense - If you have the ability to own property (which is mentioned in the constitution), and to sell it (which is not only obvious by the right to own it, but which you also just agreed to), you automatically have the ability to add to it, e.g. "BUY".

Also, Congress is allowed to engage in treaties, and any contract between states is a treaty. Trade is a conract, ergo, Congress is allowed to engage in trage with other NATIONS.

[Carinthium]

1- It clearly is not the case by a purely literal interpretation that you have the right to buy property just because you have the right to own it and the right to sell it. That's slipping into intentionalism.
2- The problem is that it does not just involve the act of making a treaty, but the act of paying money to a foreign State. Just because you have the right to make treaties with other states does not mean you have the right to pay money to them- only an intentionalist theoy can make that leap.

(EDIT: Just to make it clear, I also disagree with the right to sell property being 'obvious'. The distinction I would make is between the actual article, which says:

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States

And a following hypothetical Article, used to make the point, which would say:

The Congress shall have power to make Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States

By the second wording, it's pretty damn clear that it does not include the right to sell property, regardless of what you say about "ownership". That isn't the actual wording, of course- the first one is. But it helps to illustrate what a properly literal approach looks like)

[LaCroix]

This is a simple exercise of literal interpretation:

The Constitution states: "Territory or other Property belonging to the United States"

1. This means, literally, The United States have the right to own property.
2. This also states, literally, that Territory is a thing the United States can have property of.

Now, the right to have property is inseperable from the right to add to and dispose of said property. This is basic natural law, and the LITERAL interpretation of the word property.

[Carinthium]

If we ignore the question of the original purchase alltogether, I agree that the United States had the right to govern Louisana once it was purchased (nowadays- I once had reservations about this). It is the original purchase which I am disputing.

You appeal to "natural law" to say that if somebody has the right to own property they have the right to buy property. But natural law is an intentionalist interference in a literal interpretation, and therefore should be ignored.

[LaCroix]

Seriously? You ignore the LITERAL meaning of the term "Property", a term that was used in the very same meaning for thousands of years, everywhere on this planet, and start blabbing about intentionalism?

You sir, are simply exercising your own intentionalism by injecting your own interpretations into a text compiled of very precise legal terms.

[K. A. Pital]

Snowden is a hero. House? Gone. Chance to go back to your nation? Gone. Rarely people follow principles, not circumstances, but that's one of such cases.

[Knife]

Terallthra- Then what do you think dictionaries are full of? If a dictionary definition can exist, why can an equivalent (adapted for time period obviously) be used for literal interpretation?

Knife- No, my argument is not "I disagree, therefore misruling." I am demonstrating the possibility of a misruling (which you reject) to reinforce my arguments that it is the case.

Your words clearly imply you are using a different definition of "legitimacy" from me. What do you mean by it?

If we're having problems figuring out what you mean, perhaps you should start detailing exactly what you're talking about then.

[Zaune]

It is kinda funny that nobody in this thread seems to bother about the actual implications of Obama doing this but instead spends time debating whether so-and-so should be shot or not.

I think at this point we're all past caring. It's not as if it's really worse than dropping Hellfire missiles into residential areas to kill one mid-ranking Al-Queda operative and then picking off people who come running to help the wounded, is it?

[Flagg]

It is kinda funny that nobody in this thread seems to bother about the actual implications of Obama doing this but instead spends time debating whether so-and-so should be shot or not.

I think at this point we're all past caring. It's not as if it's really worse than dropping Hellfire missiles into residential areas to kill one mid-ranking Al-Queda operative and then picking off people who come running to help the wounded, is it?

It's not even in the same league as that.

[Terralthra]

I'm a bit rushed for a full reply right now, but just to make things clear- are you disputing the very possibility of a literal interpretation?

Not me, per se, but the entire fields of linguistics and psychology.

[Elfdart]

I love how it's all legal and therefore there's no "scandal". Except that it's legal. Which it shouldn't be. But this isn't even really news as we've known about it since 2006.

Since the 4th Amendment was never repealed then this surveillance is absolutely illegal. The Obama regime knows this -that's why they play the National Security OH NOEZ! Card every time a citizen tries to bring police state abuses before the courts:

You can't sue us for violating your rights because we have decided that the fact that we have violated your rights is a...

...SECRET!

It is kinda funny that nobody in this thread seems to bother about the actual implications of Obama doing this but instead spends time debating whether so-and-so should be shot or not.

And here comes the Obama bashing. I guess that congress and the courts are behind it as well means nothing.

All three branches of government were behind rounding up US citizens in 1942 and putting them in concentration camps. In fact, most of the truly evil things the government has done throughout history had Congress the courts and the White House behind it.

Obama deserves to be vilified on this because as head of the executive branch of government, he could stop this police state bullfuckery with a few phone calls, e-mails, faxes, etc. But he not only doesn't do it, but he comes down like a load of bricks on those who raise the hue and cry about state misconduct.

Constitutional law professor my ass.

[PKRudeBoy]

I'm a bit rushed for a full reply right now, but just to make things clear- are you disputing the very possibility of a literal interpretation?

I would argue precisely that. We live in a time so divorced from when the Constitution was written that we need to quibble over the exact meaning of phrases to get an idea of what was meant. It would be utterly impossible to govern a modern first world nation using constraints developed over two centuries ago. You can't expect a document that was written before telegraphs or even semaphore lines to be directly relevant to the Internet. What is the literalist interpretation of "keep and bear arms"? Is it the smoothbore muskets and cannon that were the definition of arms when the document was written, or anything up to and including nuclear or chemical weapons? How unlimited is the right to free speech when the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed less then a decade after the Constitution went into effect? No matter what you answer to these questions you have to make an interpretation, and surprise surprise, other people will disagree with you.

Would it have been nice if it had been followed to the letter and everything was clean cut? Absolutely. Was there ever even a remote chance of that happening? Not in the slightest. If you want a central document that has the kind of staying power to continue to be relevant over multiple centuries, it's either going to have to be precisely and exactly worded, with accompanying glossary and political treatise describing what your intentions are, or broad enough that you can get the main ideas behind it while still leaving it flexible to adapt to changing circumstances. Are there parts of the Constitution that get abused like a redheaded stepchild? Yup. But are the issues that face a 21st Century hyperpower comparable to the issues that faced an 18th Century ex-colony? Not even remotely.

[Terralthra]

PKRudeBoy, I'm making a more basic point here. Literally speaking "keep and bear arms" means you can keep and bear the arms that are attached to your body. Firearms are a metaphorical reading of "arms." Only in the modern era has "arms" come to be defined as "firearms," in addition to talking about the arm of a human, or of a shirt, or of an armchair. When the Magna Charta was signed, it meant "swords and spears, bows and slings" That's what I mean when I say that a word can't have a meaning with no context. What Carinthium seems to be arguing is that the only valid context to apply to the Constitution is the context of the time and language community when it was drafted and signed, and is defining a rather narrow subset of that context as "literal", when it's anything but.

I'd challenge him to justify his assertion that the context of the early 1800s English-descended elite, white, rich, land-owning, political language community is the only context in which it is valid to interpret the Constitution. We don't live in that society any more. We live in an evolution of it, and the language we use has evolved in keeping with that. Interpreting the Constitution according to our current language is no less valid - and arguably more valid - than trying to resurrect the sensibilities of two-centuries-dead patricians filtered through our own biases.

Further, I'd challenge that even if one is to accept the rather questionable premise that early 18th century political elite English is the only acceptable language context in which to examine the Constitution, their visions of property were provably based on Hobbes/Locke/Hume's ideas about property, in which the ability to transfer - buy or sell - property is inherent to the idea of property itself. Should we accept the warrant that the Constitution grants the Federal government the rights to own and regulate land as property, it would be inherent in that grant to include buying and selling it.

[Lord MJ]

I'm wondering what types of conversations Obama had with the representatives of the Intelligence Community during his transition. Was he intent on just letting them do what they want even during the campaign, or was he convinced somehow. You never know for sure what you are going to do, until the advisors come forth with all the secrets.

Also thinking based on the reports, that the data collection is the raw data, while actual targeted data requires additional capabilities. Maybe they believe that they only need a warrant for gathering the targeted data, but collecting the raw data is ok. In raw form it's just simply sitting on a server somewhere, just as it was when it was in the servers of Verizon, Google, et al.