Rand Paul v Barrack Obama: Defining court case of forever, or definingest court case of forever?

[DarthShizNit]

Well, this is a thing apparently.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/12/politi...amarandpaul10a

Rand Paul v. Barack H. Obama.That's the name of a lawsuit the Kentucky senator announced Wednesday against President Barack Obama and national security officials over government surveillance.
"We don't do this out of disrespect to anyone we do this out of respect to the Constitution," Paul said at a news conference.

I expect this to go all the way to the highest court in the land...Judge Judy.

Now, I always thought that senators were to supposed to work to change laws they disagree with instead of suing for political brownie points but maybe that's just me .

Thoughts & Opinions fellow members of the MudPit? Does Paul stand a chance in the court house? Will this impact the 2016 race (CNN says yes, but they're somewhat less reliable than BuzzFeed)?

[Phier]

Actually the court is where you would defend the constitution but this is just grandstanding being no sitting president has to stand trial.

[Col. Tartleton]

These are the sorts of out of the box tactics that make me respect our politicians more.

[Slydessertfox]

Rand Paul is just trying to get on the news.

[Roma_Victrix]

Rand Paul is just trying to get on the news.

Meh, at least he's standing up for something that's relevant and he has perhaps genuine convictions for, unlike that plastic mouthpiece Ted Cruz who filibustered on the senate floor for hours on end about children's books to stop the evil ObamaCare (now referred to by its real name, the Affordable Care Act).

[Slydessertfox]

Meh, at least he's standing up for something that's relevant and he has perhaps genuine convictions for, unlike that plastic mouthpiece Ted Cruz who filibustered on the senate floor for hours on end about children's books to stop the evil ObamaCare (now referred to by its real name, the Affordable Care Act).

Obama pointed something out recently: If Obamacare becomes a success, the same people who coined the term Obamacare are going to start calling it the Affordable Care Act and trying to dissociate his name from it. They will probably start reminding people how it was Bob Dole's plan in the 90's and used to be backed by the Heritage Foundation and was first tried successfully by Romney.

[fkizz]

Obama pointed something out recently: If Obamacare becomes a success, the same people who coined the term Obamacare are going to start calling it the Affordable Care Act and trying to dissociate his name from it. They will probably start reminding people how it was Bob Dole's plan in the 90's and used to be backed by the Heritage Foundation and was first tried successfully by Romney.

Sounds familiar.. I guess politics are the same instincts no matter the country.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Obama pointed something out recently: If Obamacare becomes a success, the same people who coined the term Obamacare are going to start calling it the Affordable Care Act and trying to dissociate his name from it. They will probably start reminding people how it was Bob Dole's plan in the 90's and used to be backed by the Heritage Foundation and was first tried successfully by Romney.

Well if the CBO/common sense is any indication, it'll be Democrats trying to call it the Bob Dole plan before long.......

[Slydessertfox]

Well if the CBO/common sense is any indication, it'll be Democrats trying to call it the Bob Dole plan before long.......

Are you one of those people that is going to completely misrepresent the CBO?

[Lord Thesaurian]

Well, the government's surveillance tactics, from the Patriot Act to the NSA, have already been cleared by the courts. I think if this lawsuit will accomplish anything, it will be to bring at least some focus to the bizarre world we've created for ourselves; a world where what to me seem clear violations of the 4th Amendment are smoothed over by the very judicial authorities entrusted to guard the Constitution, all in the name of that great abstraction and favorite excuse of any tyrant: "National security" In any case, the only real winners here, as usual, will be the lawyers, politicians and lobbyists.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2145138

[Slydessertfox]

It's about time we updated the constitution-you know, a bill of rights written with the technology of the 1780's doesn't work well in 2014.

[sleepyx732]

It's about time we updated the constitution-you know, a bill of rights written with the technology of the 1780's doesn't work well in 2014.

So are you suggesting we rewrite the constitution with the technology of the today? Hand printing is so 200 years ago. We have machines that do everything now.

[Slydessertfox]

So are you suggesting we rewrite the constitution with the technology of the today? Hand printing is so 200 years ago. We have machines that do everything now.

I'm saying we update the language-obviously the whole principle would be the same-for example "no illegal searches and seizures". But updating that to address the various ins and outs of new technology, like the internet and meta data, is imperative. When it gets to the point where it's so vague that you can make equally valid constitutional arguments from both sides, that's a problem.

[sleepyx732]

I'm saying we update the language-obviously the whole principle would be the same-for example "no illegal searches and seizures". But updating that to address the various ins and outs of new technology, like the internet and meta data, is imperative. When it gets to the point where it's so vague that you can make equally valid constitutional arguments from both sides, that's a problem.

I agree.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I'm saying we update the language-obviously the whole principle would be the same-for example "no illegal searches and seizures". But updating that to address the various ins and outs of new technology, like the internet and meta data, is imperative. When it gets to the point where it's so vague that you can make equally valid constitutional arguments from both sides, that's a problem.

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So, no person or property can be searched or seized by any authority without formal charges, a warrant, and an explicit public record of the probable cause that justified the search, specifically naming the person place or thing to be searched or seized. Gee, so vague. And yet cops can search your car or invade your home for any reason without a warrant provided they can come up with a "probable cause" to write on the report after the fact. The NSA can tap your phone without a warrant; federal authorities can snipe you and spy on you with drones; the police can break into your house without your knowledge and do whatever they want to "gather evidence" provided they don't "remove any property," the President has the ability to make up any list of people he wants bagged and tossed in jail without charges, without a formal arrest; kidnapping, secret black-helicopter style.

Wow. Much vague. So blur. I got it! We can haz new konstitooshun?

The 4th Amendment isn't vague; certainly not when it comes to, you know, arrests without warrants or charges and clandestine search and surveillance The feds just don't give a , and neither, apparently, do we as citizens since we actively voted the perpetrators into office and chanted USA! USA! USA! as our rights were whittled away bit by bit. Why?
TURRISTS!

[Slydessertfox]

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So, no person or property can be searched or seized by any authority without formal charges, a warrant, and an explicit public record of the probable cause that justified the search, specifically naming the person place or thing to be searched or seized. Gee, so vague. And yet cops can search your car or invade your home for any reason without a warrant provided they can come up with a "probable cause" to write on the report after the fact. The NSA can tap your phone without a warrant; federal authorities can snipe you and spy on you with drones; the police can break into your house without your knowledge and do whatever they want to "gather evidence" provided they don't "remove any property," the President has the ability to make up any list of people he wants bagged and tossed in jail without charges, without a formal arrest; kidnapping, secret black-helicopter style.

Wow. Much vague. So blur. I got it! We can haz new konstitooshun?

The 4th Amendment isn't vague; certainly not when it comes to, you know, arrests without warrants or charges and clandestine search and surveillance The feds just don't give a , and neither, apparently, do we as citizens since we actively voted the perpetrators into office and chanted USA! USA! USA! as our rights were whittled away bit by bit. Why?
TURRISTS!

Fair enough.

[PointOfViewGun]

Weren't these bills voted by the Congress as well? He's gonna include all the Republican and Democratic politicians in the case as well?

[Simon Cashmere]

The 4th Amendment isn't vague; certainly not when it comes to, you know, arrests without warrants or charges and clandestine search and surveillance

The truth is, they never have. It's only if they are going to use the information in Court or likely to that they care how they get it. Otherwise they'll break into wherever, seize whatever, hack whatever. Who's going to stop them?

[Gaidin]

The truth is, they never have. It's only if they are going to use the information in Court or likely to that they care how they get it. Otherwise they'll break into wherever, seize whatever, hack whatever. Who's going to stop them?

Doesn't say anything about only if the information's going to be used in Court. That's generally just the most obvious consequence. We still have the right. Let's just say that if a lawsuit against an (unnamed) agency (as I haven't looked at a lawsuit that will probably go nowhere) that may or may not have a good track record for the FISA court goes forward, it'd be ironic if they actually had a good record of getting those warrants when they needed them except for those people that broke agency rules and then got fired and/or handled properly.

I mostly think the lawsuit will go nowhere because I think Rand Paul is doing a public stunt.

[Condottiere 40K]

Need to finally complete the clause that we can arm bears.