Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:2 sentences. citizens rights and privileges. (Score 1) 428

by thaylin (#48612205) Attached to: Federal Court Nixes Weeks of Warrantless Video Surveillance

Ahh Mr Sues, now you are adding stuff not in there. It does not say rights.. It says privileges and immensities.

Even still you are incorrect.

Amendment 5

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

No PERSON

Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

Of the people.

The others are the same. It does not say citizen, and it has been interpreted to not mean citizen. So unless you are claiming better qualifications than the SCOTUS, you are definitely wrong.

Comment: Re:no state shall abridge ... citizens of the Unit (Score 1) 428

by thaylin (#48610805) Attached to: Federal Court Nixes Weeks of Warrantless Video Surveillance

The Bill of Rights is extended to state governments by the 14th amendment, which says:

      No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

So yeah, you're simply wrong. The Consitution applies only due process applies to non-citizens. The first, second, fourth, and fifth amendments, at least are protected for "citizens of the United States". People here illegally are entitled to due process, a hearing, before they are nailed or their property is taken. Other than that, they are intruders and have about the same rights as someone who broke into your home. Legal immigrants are guests in the country and you can think about the difference in rights between a guest you invite into your home versus you in your own home. Only one of two is allowed to touch the thermostat, or go upstairs.

it says any PERSON, not any CITIZEN.. So he is correct, you are wrong.

Comment: Re:this is ridiculous (Score 1) 428

by thaylin (#48610545) Attached to: Federal Court Nixes Weeks of Warrantless Video Surveillance

There are lots of differences. For example a cop is obstructed by things like passer byes cars, small fences and the such. A camera mounted 30 ft up is not obstructed by any such things.

A camera mounted that high sees everything, a cop on a steak out only sees a very small subset. Also this was the appeals process. If I am not mistaken it is pretty much only the SCOTUS it can go to now.

Comment: Re: First amendment? (Score 2) 248

by thaylin (#48603921) Attached to: Sony Demands Press Destroy Leaked Documents

Umm, no it does not, from the article:

Petitioners filed suit under both federal and state wiretapping laws, alleging that an unknown person using an electronic device had surreptitiously intercepted their telephone conversation.

This was about a lawsuit not a criminal case. Maybe you should actually read the finding before making false statements.

"You don't go out and kick a mad dog. If you have a mad dog with rabies, you take a gun and shoot him." -- Pat Robertson, TV Evangelist, about Muammar Kadhafy

Working...