Does that pass for a clever jibe in your social circles?
There is no legal way for anyone to stop the President from a first strike nuclear attack.
Sure there is. The other men in the National Command Authority can refuse to concur with a launch order.
The US has never been a tyranny,
Tell it to Debs or Korematsu.
Follow your own advice.
The 2nd amendment is for the right of states
The militia is cited as one reason to prohibit the federal government from disarming us, but the amendment doesn't even presume to be granting the right. It acknowledges it as pre-existing.
They also did it in Boston against the crown's tax collectors, and fuck you for trying to smear me.
They went in and searched everyone's phones. Unless there's an important detail we aren't being told here, that's unconstitutional. The 4th amendment says "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."
The important part there is "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." That is in there specifically to ban general search warrants. The idea is the police can't go to a judge and say "We think there is something illegal in a house somewhere in this 500 home neighbourhood, we'd like a warrant to search the houses," and the judge issues them a blanket warrant allowing them to search any home there, and look through anything in said home. That isn't allowed. They have to say specifically where it is they want to search, and what it is they are looking for, and also why they have probable cause to believe that what they are looking for is there.
If you read the article they say right at the bottom "I think it's very questionable whether the 4th Amendment" -- which protects citizens against unreasonable search and seizure -- "allows such an open-ended extension of the search warrant."
It isn't 100% clear, there is no cut and dried supreme court ruling and there have been some conflicting lower court rulings but in general the opinion of the courts seems to be that you can't be forced to hand over a password/code/etc because that is something in your head, which falls under 5th amendment protections against self incrimination.
The 4th amendment is what would be used to challenge a broad search warrant like was issued in this case. Without knowing the specifics I can't say for sure but this sounds like it would be an illegal search since it was a general warrant and that isn't allowed. The police aren't (supposed to be) able to get a warrant to just search anyone or anything in a given place, they have to be specific. This doesn't sound like it was, and so would probably be a 4th amendment violation.
It's probably the difference between something you have, and something you know. The first is covered by the search warrant (the right to search and look at everything - including the fingerprint), the second not (you're not required to give information, e.g. on where to find things - and the password).
I've often said, we'd only have to do that to a handful of those assholes every couple of years or so to make most of them clean up their act.
Any Clinton staffer calling you smug is like Michael Moore calling you a fat-ass.
Lessig has already accomplished more than any hundred Clinton minions put together ever will in their entire careers of public disservice.
This is an obvious violation of the fifth amendment, and the judge who issued the warrant isn't qualified to practice law in the united states.
The next step for this country is to get a tyrant at the helm.
That's already happened, several times.
... keep holding it down.
Seriously, this is such an unconscionable violation of basic privacy that even people who have done nothing wrong should automatically have that reaction. And anybody who has done something wrong should know better than to use a fingerprint for unlocking anyway. What was this supposed to prove other than that they have a judge who will rubber-stamp any order no matter how appalling?
Why are you gun grabbers so fucking snotty all the time? Do you think it's going to get us to abandon our right to self-defense?
C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]