Because we are in the last throws of Pax Americana and the Visigoths are not at the gate - they come from within the city walls.
I couldn’t have put it any better.
It’s not that draconian: the guy was being questioned before becoming a suspect (and thus wasn’t read his rights yet and “free to go”) and was answering questions until asked about the weapon - then he went silent. That’s what the ruling is about.
Even still, the fact is that the Fifth amendment doesn’t say you need to be a suspect in order for your silence or your words to be used against you. The guy was a murderer, no doubt, but I want MORE guarantees and protection from police, not fewer. I’m not saying the police can’t interpret his silence as suspicious, only that it shouldn’t be presented in court as evidence of his guilt.
I don’t understand why the Second Amendment is interpreted broadly enough to allow nearly universal access to firearms while the U.S. Supreme Court continues to narrow the scope of the Fourth, Fifth, and 14th Amendments.
And the latest Fifth Amendment decision makes it clear that claims of strict originalism and strict constructionalism from the court’s right wing are complete and total bullshit.
Well, the Constitution was nice while it lasted, folks. Time to figure something else out.
And repeat after me: “I do not consent to any search of my person or belongings, and I request access to legal counsel. Until then, I am invoking my Constitutionally protected right to remain silent.” That is how every interview with the police should go.
The NSA wiretapping isn’t about politics, exactly. It’s not a left/right/center issue (obviously enough, given that both a Republican and Democratic president have backed the plan, and it has bipartisan support in Congress), it’s an establishment issue.
That is to say: once you are in power, your primary function is to hold on to that power, and you make the compromises you think you have to make along the way. Some of them are big moral compromises, some of them aren’t, and some of them don’t reveal themselves until later.
So it makes sense that a broad swath of politicians, from across the spectrum, would support a plan that increases government authority, thereby consolidating their hold on power. And that increase is like a ratchet—it only moves in one direction.
This is the very long way of asking: How does one run a government—by definition the establishment—without becoming a member of that establishment (Which is not even to mention the difficulty if not outright impossibility of being elected to the Senate or to the Presidency without thorough support from aforementioned establishment)?
How does one create a system of government in which the rights and security of people are protected without the moral compromise on issues like surveillance, as well as compromises on other important issues—healthcare, income inequality, and women’s reproductive freedoms to name just a few?
you mean a right-wing libertarian. I consider myself a left libertarian/social anarchist/libertarian socialist (Chomsky’s considered libertarian socialist, I think). we’re not that way at all.
You are completely correct. My apologies for using shorthand there. I was referring to right-libertarians, e.g. Ron Paul adherents.