quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

You've cited the exact reasons that both my points are correct, and added assumptions not supported by facts in evidence.

"In their houses' only means 'NOT in their houses' if the Supreme court says it does...and guess what? They haven't made that extension in every circumstance. Read Olmstead and then Katz for the balancing test I mentioned.

And there is a perfect right to yell fire in a crowded theater, if the theater is in fact, on fire...but there is no absolute right either way, of the sort you are positing for debate purposes.

The rights we have are not carved in stone, so your debate challenge is merely an exerise, and a futile one on an interrnet forum, where people will makee up their own definitions, ignore logical rules, and play the usual games.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

Common people are the slaves of the powerful, especially in advanced, "western" countries - and their chains are being tightened ever so slowly, continuously. Eventually everyone will carry the Number of the Beast, being totally supervised and controlled and owned. It all started when people were forced to have identification papers, for example when crossing a border.
 
@Termyn8or: interesting facts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

That's a good point, but the fact that the government has been unjustly oppressive in the past is hardly a good reason why it should be unjustly oppressive today.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

You've cited the exact reasons that both my points are correct, and added assumptions not supported by facts in evidence.

"In their houses' only means 'NOT in their houses' if the Supreme court says it does...and guess what? They haven't made that extension in every circumstance. Read Olmstead and then Katz for the balancing test I mentioned.

And there is a perfect right to yell fire in a crowded theater, if the theater is in fact, on fire...but there is no absolute right either way, of the sort you are positing for debate purposes.

The rights we have are not carved in stone, so your debate challenge is merely an exerise, and a futile one on an interrnet forum, where people will makee up their own definitions, ignore logical rules, and play the usual games.

Care to show me where the Fourth Amendment specifies that we are secure in our persons, papers and effects only in our homes? You just built a strawman. It has nothing to do with "in our houses" meaning "not in our houses". Persons, papers and effects are listed WITH homes, not listed with a clause restricting the right to our homes.

Olmstead was overturned. It's also notable that Olmstead is one of Brandeis' famous dissents (which have been considered powerful evidence in later cases). I fail to see how Olmstead bolsters your case unless we consider it standing case law.

Katz on the other hand, which you cite, is a direct support of my position. It was held that people are protected, not just places. It was held that wiretaps require warrants with a strictly limited scope and duration. It was held the warrant must be acquired before the wiretap. It was held when people have a reasonable expectation of privacy that their actions and conversations are protected by the Fourth Amendment. These findings directly support my claims about the Fourth Amendment and run counter to your assertions.

Also reference Mapp v. Ohio and Weeks v. United States for further Fourth Amendment case law.

Oh come on now! I was not implying that yelling fire in a crowded theater was ALWAYS improper. You're just building another strawman arguement. I meantioned it specifically in the context of the famous metaphor.

*meow*

(EDIT: typo correction)