Then support a Constitutional Amendment that revokes the 9th. Otherwise, you're supporting the willful ignoring of a system that you may one day need to use. If it happens that someone is in power who doesn't like you (for whatever reason that may be, some petty, some not), they'll use the old justification that you supported saying the ends justify the means.

Apparently you have no problem with what McCarthy did, since that's exactly what you're attempting to justify.

The 9th, however, does guarantee a right to privacy.

Nowhere in the Constitution is the government granted a power that overrides privacy. Taken together, the 4th and 9th Amendments should guarantee that privacy is a right which may only be overridden by a warrant issued based on probable cause.

The government powers should be read as follows:
Order Deny, Allow
Deny from all
Allow powers as written in Constitution

Unfortunately, it's been re-interpreted as:
Order Allow, Deny
Allow from all
Deny as few powers as possible without causing a revolt

The 9th Amendment covers it quite well. Since the government is not granted an explicit power to infringe the right of privacy, it is a protected right.

A big part of the copyright problem is that copyright is now functionally a forever monopoly. Nothing entered the US public domain this last year.

Probable cause would require that they have reason to believe the phone was relevant to the accident. It has to be considered a relevant factor prior to the search. The 4th prohibits searches to determine if the thing searched is relevant. Relevant is a necessary precondition of probable cause.

Yeah, it would be a lot easier to deal with radical Tea Party types if they weren't so willing to allow their ideology to be co-opted by rapid pro-authoritarians. They're now little better than the far left extremists like ELF, though only the border Nazis and some militia groups have devolved into the type of domestic terrorists that make up ELF.

The CIA was, at one point, prohibited from spying on solely domestic targets.

That's apparently no longer the case. I am not sure if the prohibition was legal or by executive order, but I don't believe it was repealed in either event. Not that the government cares about such formalities anymore. If they get caught, they just pass a law retroactively forgiving those who were complicit in their crimes.

This is very true, and something most people miss whenever they are faced with an arena dominated by enormous amounts of money. It's not about the money, it's about the desire for power for those throwing truckloads of money into a particular arena.

If there's no power to be had, the money is usually clean and representative of the larger picture by all those involved.

It's too bad that people like you are a tiny minority among the screaming hordes of the scientifically illiterate and those who take everything "scientific" they read at face value.

It does, it just promotes different ideas on what is good for society. You could make the same statement about D and R, and each would say the other was not promoting the good of society where their views conflicted.

It's a defense against corrupted laws. The ability to help nullify corrupt laws will always trump letting the guilty go free. If you are guilty of violating a corrupt law, it is in the overriding benefit to society that you be able to be guilty and not have to help in your own prosecution. There are ample examples in history where it is right to ignore certain laws wholesale.

Wow. Just ... wow.

I can understand the regulation of imported materials, but every plant? That's seriously fucked.

Because when one hands a rent controlled apartment to ones offspring, one is disposing of ones own property, not someone elses. Moron.

Funny, I can't think of a single way to read the above to mean handing over a rent-controlled apartment is disposing of some else' property, given that it says the exact opposite. If you intended it to be sarcastic, you failed completely to make that clear.

Actually, it seems far easier to part a poor person from their money than a rich person. Just look at the personal consumption habits of the US.