Judge: Americans can be forced to decrypt their laptops

[mike114]

I think the trouble with all this is that the US Constitution is looked at when it comes to matters like these. The Constitution was not designed to limit the State's powers. In this case, the Colorado state constitution should be the guide here. And after a 5 minute search, one can read Article 2, Section 18 for guidance.

http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/doit/archives/constitution/1876.pdf

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

I think the trouble with all this is that the US Constitution is looked at when it comes to matters like these. The Constitution was not designed to limit the State's powers. In this case, the Colorado state constitution should be the guide here. And after a 5 minute search, one can read Article 2, Section 18 for guidance.

http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/doit/archives/constitution/1876.pdf

The states are supposed to follow the Constitution in all matters otherwise there is no use for the document.

 

[OstrichSaK]

I think the trouble with all this is that the US Constitution is looked at when it comes to matters like these. The Constitution was not designed to limit the State's powers. In this case, the Colorado state constitution should be the guide here. And after a 5 minute search, one can read Article 2, Section 18 for guidance.

http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/doit/archives/constitution/1876.pdf

No, it was designed to spell out the rights that every individual is born with. It wasn't created to provide the rights, we are all born with them even if the document didn't exist. So if the state wishes to rule in a manner that violates the individual's rights then the federal government is supposed to step in the keep the state from violating the rights of it's citizens. This is a good example where the 5th amendment should clearly apply and anything saying otherwise is a direct violation of the individual's 5th amendment rights to not provide information that would incriminate themselves. To FORCE someone to give up any information that could be self incriminating is ludicrous. If the prosecution doesn't have a case then the guy walks. Period. End of story.

 

[9to5cynic]

Someone (I think on here somewhere...I'd fell like an idiot if it turned out to be this thread ) said something along the lines that:
in the past, laws were written saying what you *can* do, now they are written saying what you *cannot* do.

Strike that, reverse it!

 

[EarlyMon]

Someone (I think on here somewhere...I'd fell like an idiot if it turned out to be this thread ) said something along the lines that:
in the past, laws were written saying what you *can* do, now they are written saying what you *cannot* do.

Hmmmm, how true is that?

I thought we had freedom as a natural right except where curtailed by law.

The Bill of Rights specifies our rights by saying what the government cannot do to us, yes?

Or am I all wooly here?

 

[9to5cynic]

Hmm.. you know, I think I might have gotten that backasswards. Re-reading it now (several hours later), that doesn't make any sense at all.

Maybe this works better:
In the past, laws were written telling us what we *cannot* do, know they tell us what we *can* do.

I think that's better, but I'm sure if it isn't, I'll realize it sometime tomorrow....


Anyway, when I first read it, I was like "Oh yeah, that's it right there!".... >.<

 

[mike114]

No, it was designed to spell out the rights that every individual is born with. It wasn't created to provide the rights, we are all born with them even if the document didn't exist. So if the state wishes to rule in a manner that violates the individual's rights then the federal government is supposed to step in the keep the state from violating the rights of it's citizens. This is a good example where the 5th amendment should clearly apply and anything saying otherwise is a direct violation of the individual's 5th amendment rights to not provide information that would incriminate themselves. To FORCE someone to give up any information that could be self incriminating is ludicrous. If the prosecution doesn't have a case then the guy walks. Period. End of story.

The original intent of the Constitution was to limit the federal government only. If the Constitution doesn't specifically prohibit the States, then they are free to do what they wish. At least that's how it was supposed to be. In theory, States can't really violate the 5th Amendment as it applies to the federal government only. If the Constitution is the superior document, then what is the point of States having constitutions?? In this case, it seems the Colorado constitution has been violated and it should be dealt with at the State level. We do believe in State's rights, don't we?

 

[OstrichSaK]

The original intent of the Constitution was to limit the federal government only. If the Constitution doesn't specifically prohibit the States, then they are free to do what they wish. At least that's how it was supposed to be. In theory, States can't really violate the 5th Amendment as it applies to the federal government only. If the Constitution is the superior document, then what is the point of States having constitutions?? In this case, it seems the Colorado constitution has been violated and it should be dealt with at the State level. We do believe in State's rights, don't we?

So now you're putting the state's rights above the individuals rights? I'm all for states rights but when the state makes stupid decisions like this that infringe on the rights of an individual (such as this) then the only thing left to do is get the federal government involved to reverse the state's infringement on the individuals rights.

It amazes me that in this whole State vs Federal government debate so many people have forgotten about the individual who's rights are paramount to all.

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

The original intent of the Constitution was to limit the federal government only. If the Constitution doesn't specifically prohibit the States, then they are free to do what they wish. At least that's how it was supposed to be. In theory, States can't really violate the 5th Amendment as it applies to the federal government only. If the Constitution is the superior document, then what is the point of States having constitutions?? In this case, it seems the Colorado constitution has been violated and it should be dealt with at the State level. We do believe in State's rights, don't we?

So now you're putting the state's rights above the individuals rights? I'm all for states rights but when the state makes stupid decisions like this that infringe on the rights of an individual (such as this) then the only thing left to do is get the federal government involved to reverse the state's infringement on the individuals rights.

It amazes me that in this whole State vs Federal government debate so many people have forgotten about the individual who's rights are paramount to all.

Ostrich is correct on this one, the Constitution is not a "suggestion" that can be tossed out at the state level, it is a list of rights granted to all citizens that can not be violated by anyone. Any arguments that the founding fathers intended it to apply to the federal government only are patently false, to assume such totally negates the concept behind the Constitution.

 

[Martimus]

Give it time...

Blackburn is a US District Court judge. I have little doubt that this will make it's way to the 10th circuit Court of Appeals. From what I've read the 10th circuit is a fairly liberal court so I'm guessing that this issue will find it's way to the Supreme Court.

 

[mike114]

Ostrich is correct on this one, the Constitution is not a "suggestion" that can be tossed out at the state level, it is a list of rights granted to all citizens that can not be violated by anyone. Any arguments that the founding fathers intended it to apply to the federal government only are patently false, to assume such totally negates the concept behind the Constitution.

I'm sorry to disagree with you guys on this one as I believe we are on the same page when it comes to most debates. But it's you that are wrong on this one. The Constitution was to restrict the feds only. I believed like you did but have since changed my mind thanks in part to people like Mike Church, Kevin Gutzman, Tom Woods.

In fact, I had asked Prof Gutzman this same question back in june on FB. This was my question, "Prof Gutzman, I'd like to ask you a quick question about the Constitution if I may.

My understanding is that the Bill of Rights restricts only the federal government. So all the challenges to states violating people's 2nd & 4th amendment rights are not the right tact. Shouldn't people be looking at their state's constitutions to be defending their positions when it comes to gun rights and search and siezure protections?"

His answer was a quick and simple, "Yep".

We need to realize that the States were the one's who created the federal government and they would never allow the feds to have this much power over them. If it's not prohibited by the federal gov't, than the States are free to do what they wish within the confines of the their respective State constitutions. We are either all in when it comes to State's rights, or we aren't.

Remember, the 1st Amendment starts out with "Congress shall make no law". Nothing in there about the States.

Unfortunately we have been taught the incorrect version of the Constitution and the States have been paying a heavy price since then.

 

[mike114]

So now you're putting the state's rights above the individuals rights? I'm all for states rights but when the state makes stupid decisions like this that infringe on the rights of an individual (such as this) then the only thing left to do is get the federal government involved to reverse the state's infringement on the individuals rights.

It amazes me that in this whole State vs Federal government debate so many people have forgotten about the individual who's rights are paramount to all.

So what happens when the Feds infringe on our rights? Should we then allow the UN or some world court decide for us? Of course not. We are to hold our elected officials responsible and when they enact laws that violate Constitutions, they need to be replaced. And judges who affirm these types of laws need to be impeached immediately.

Just as we should not look to the world community when the feds violate the US Constitution, federal judges should not be getting involved when States violate their constitutions unless of course it is what's described in the 10th Amendment.

And thanks for the responses. We need these types of discussion to get people to really think how much our federal government has gone beyond anything the Founders (except for maybe a few) would have envisioned.

 

[OstrichSaK]

I'm sorry to disagree with you guys on this one as I believe we are on the same page when it comes to most debates. But it's you that are wrong on this one. The Constitution was to restrict the feds only. I believed like you did but have since changed my mind thanks in part to people like Mike Church, Kevin Gutzman, Tom Woods.

In fact, I had asked Prof Gutzman this same question back in june on FB. This was my question, "Prof Gutzman, I'd like to ask you a quick question about the Constitution if I may.

My understanding is that the Bill of Rights restricts only the federal government. So all the challenges to states violating people's 2nd & 4th amendment rights are not the right tact. Shouldn't people be looking at their state's constitutions to be defending their positions when it comes to gun rights and search and siezure protections?"

His answer was a quick and simple, "Yep".

We need to realize that the States were the one's who created the federal government and they would never allow the feds to have this much power over them. If it's not prohibited by the federal gov't, than the States are free to do what they wish within the confines of the their respective State constitutions. We are either all in when it comes to State's rights, or we aren't.

Remember, the 1st Amendment starts out with "Congress shall make no law". Nothing in there about the States.

Unfortunately we have been taught the incorrect version of the Constitution and the States have been paying a heavy price since then.

Actually, it wasn't the states that created the federal government. It was the PEOPLE who created both forms of government. The individual's supersede the state government. The state is NOT to infringe upon the individual's rights and if it does then it's up to the federal government to step in via the Supreme court to rule if a law infringes upon the rights of the individuals. In this manner the federal government can indeed rule over a state but it does so only in looking out for the individual when the state has overstepped it's boundaries. Our founding fathers wanted to make sure that a state couldn't simply create laws taking away one's freedom of speech, right to bear arms, right to due process and any other rights we're born with. This is why they added this check. The problem lies with the continual bending and reinterpreting of the constitution to allow them to slowly chip away at our freedoms. I find it hard to believe that by 'right to bear arms' they meant that we would be restricted beyond belief to the point of lots of people not even being able to own them or carry them to protect themselves. This is for another thread however. At no point will you convince me that the founding fathers wanted the states to be able to run amok with the rights of the citizens regardless of what some professor says.

 

[OstrichSaK]

So what happens when the Feds infringe on our rights? Should we then allow the UN or some world court decide for us? Of course not. We are to hold our elected officials responsible and when they enact laws that violate Constitutions, they need to be replaced. And judges who affirm these types of laws need to be impeached immediately.

Just as we should not look to the world community when the feds violate the US Constitution, federal judges should not be getting involved when States violate their constitutions unless of course it is what's described in the 10th Amendment.

And thanks for the responses. We need these types of discussion to get people to really think how much our federal government has gone beyond anything the Founders (except for maybe a few) would have envisioned.

Why would we get the UN involved in anything? There are checks and balances for a reason and there are processes for everything. If those checks and balances fail then we're required as citizens of this great nation to regain control of the government by any means necessary. It's not something that we 'could' do if we feel like it it's something we're actually required to do when the government gains too much power. When the government fears it's people you have freedom & liberty. When the people fear the government you have tyranny & oppression.

 

[Gearu]

Isn't fighting terrorism (and anything labelled as terrorism) while oppressing your own people counter-productive?

 

[OstrichSaK]

Isn't fighting terrorism (and anything labelled as terrorism) while oppressing your own people counter-productive?

One would think. Seems to me the more liberties they take from us the closer we get to the very people we're fighting. Guess most sheeple don't think this way thought. Gotta keep us all safe from the boogie man!

 

[argedion]

One would think. Seems to me the more liberties they take from us the closer we get to the very people we're fighting. Guess most sheeple don't think this way thought. Gotta keep us all safe from the boogie man!

To bad the boogie man is the sheeple. As long as we sit on our ass and don't make out cries and fight for our rights then why would anyone else? To quote my own self in another thread:

We have grown accustomed to the way of life that many Great people fought and died for. Now we dishonor them by not doing anything but watching the world go to hell in a hand basket. But We are entertained.

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

I'm sorry to disagree with you guys on this one as I believe we are on the same page when it comes to most debates. But it's you that are wrong on this one. The Constitution was to restrict the feds only. I believed like you did but have since changed my mind thanks in part to people like Mike Church, Kevin Gutzman, Tom Woods.

In fact, I had asked Prof Gutzman this same question back in june on FB. This was my question, "Prof Gutzman, I'd like to ask you a quick question about the Constitution if I may.

My understanding is that the Bill of Rights restricts only the federal government. So all the challenges to states violating people's 2nd & 4th amendment rights are not the right tact. Shouldn't people be looking at their state's constitutions to be defending their positions when it comes to gun rights and search and siezure protections?"

His answer was a quick and simple, "Yep".

We need to realize that the States were the one's who created the federal government and they would never allow the feds to have this much power over them. If it's not prohibited by the federal gov't, than the States are free to do what they wish within the confines of the their respective State constitutions. We are either all in when it comes to State's rights, or we aren't.

Remember, the 1st Amendment starts out with "Congress shall make no law". Nothing in there about the States.

Unfortunately we have been taught the incorrect version of the Constitution and the States have been paying a heavy price since then.

From day one the U.S. Supreme Court has had the ability to intervene when States violated individual rights and are supposed to do so still. Anyone who argues to the contrary is stating personal opinion which is where a lot of the misconception comes from in the first place. Historians give their opinion as to what happened as they see it, I have seen almost none who are totally unbiased.

The Constitution was enacted to protect individual liberties, if the States can toss it aside then why was it created at all? It would serve absolutely no purpose at all if it is not all encompassing.

 

[Martimus]

The challenge we run into with regard to constitutional law is that enforcement is based upon interpretation... not fact. The Executive branch interprets it their way, Congress interprets it their way, the States interpret it their way, and constitutional scholars interpret it their way. In most cases this means that interpretation is subject to legal challenges and, ultimately, the final interpretation comes from the US Supreme Court.

 

[argedion]

The challenge we run into with regard to constitutional law is that enforcement is based upon interpretation... not fact. The Executive branch interprets it their way, Congress interprets it their way, the States interpret it their way, and constitutional scholars interpret it their way. In most cases this means that interpretation is subject to legal challenges and, ultimately, the final interpretation comes from the US Supreme Court.

And the only thing we can count on is in the end We the People will get screwed.

 

[mike114]

From day one the U.S. Supreme Court has had the ability to intervene when States violated individual rights and are supposed to do so still. Anyone who argues to the contrary is stating personal opinion which is where a lot of the misconception comes from in the first place. Historians give their opinion as to what happened as they see it, I have seen almost none who are totally unbiased.

The Constitution was enacted to protect individual liberties, if the States can toss it aside then why was it created at all? It would serve absolutely no purpose at all if it is not all encompassing.

Some of you on here, and I mean that with no disrespect, need to grasp what our Founders envisioned when creating the Constitution. There is a great FB post written by one of the Forgotten Men and the thread that ensue's is very enlightening and educational. If you really feel the US Constitution was to be superior to the State Constitutions (like it does now) was the intent of our Founders, I beg you to read this.

https://www.facebook.com/theforgottenmen/posts/10150662901396069

Here is a sample of that writing, "Under a proper rendering of the Bill of Rights, any State can regulate the heck out of guns and the Federal government has absolutely no say about it. We the People of that State do, but not the federal government. And when a crappy State, populated by a bunch of crappy people who don't care about the Inalienable Right to self defense, regulates the heck out of gun ownership, the very last thing the non-crappy people of that State should do is run to the federal courts for help. No, they should run to their State courts, their State legislature, run for office themselves to take back political power themselves in their State...or leave the crappy state. That's it!"

I'd love to get some feedback on this as I think this is something worthy of discussion. I was going to create another thread, but thought it might work here.

 

[copestag]

Some of you on here, and I mean that with no disrespect, need to grasp what our Founders envisioned when creating the Constitution. There is a great FB post written by one of the Forgotten Men and the thread that ensue's is very enlightening and educational. If you really feel the US Constitution was to be superior to the State Constitutions (like it does now) was the intent of our Founders, I beg you to read this.

https://www.facebook.com/theforgottenmen/posts/10150662901396069

Here is a sample of that writing, "Under a proper rendering of the Bill of Rights, any State can regulate the heck out of guns and the Federal government has absolutely no say about it. We the People of that State do, but not the federal government. And when a crappy State, populated by a bunch of crappy people who don't care about the Inalienable Right to self defense, regulates the heck out of gun ownership, the very last thing the non-crappy people of that State should do is run to the federal courts for help. No, they should run to their State courts, their State legislature, run for office themselves to take back political power themselves in their State...or leave the crappy state. That's it!"

I'd love to get some feedback on this as I think this is something worthy of discussion. I was going to create another thread, but thought it might work here.

how anyone could possibly believe this was the intent is beyond imagination........ WOW just WOW

 

[mike114]

how anyone could possibly believe this was the intent is beyond imagination........ WOW just WOW

So it's obvious you didn't read any of it other than what I posted. Thanks for taking the time to at least argue one of the points that was presented. Oh wait...you didn't.

Since at the heart of all this is the 14th Amendment, maybe you can provide the writings or the debates that would make that amendment as powerful as it has become. There are many arguments to the contrary from the writers of that amendment. But if this position is as wrong as you say it is, it should be easy for you to find the proof that the 14th Amendment was to be used as the "Incorporation Doctrine" that the Supremes dreamed it to be.

 

[mike114]

Here is a post in the thread that you may have missed if you read through it;

"You always interpret a Constitution (or an amendment) based on what the parties believed they were agreeing to at the time. If you look at the ratification debates surrounding the 14th, and the words of those "selling" the amendment to the states, the intent is clear. They said the amendment was a constitutionalization of the Civil Rights Act of 1865 and they also said it was not meant to give "blanket policing authority" to the federal government. The states were to maintain their authority over areas not enumerated by the Constitution. The 14th was meant to secure for the freed slaves the same rights of citizenship as those already citizens and to protect them from unfair treatment by the states...as in extending privileges to one group and not the other. The rights protected were limited and specific, including the right to own property, enter into contracts and travel freely between states."

 

[OstrichSaK]

"The states were to maintain their authority over areas not enumerated by the Constitution."

This is the key to that statement and the right to bear arms is indeed "enumerated by the Constitution" so therefore a state may NOT infringe upon this right and if they do then it IS the right of the federal government to step in and return those rights to the individuals. So if rights are taken away from the people by the state government then the federal government has every right to step in make sure the people aren't being stripped of their rights. Firearm controls are exactly that and there's no argument other than degree. A better example is with Colorado essentially legalizing MJ (by way of script and soon to be w/o script to those above the age of 21 as the current bill is written) and the federal government stepping in and saying they won't honor that. People with legal prescriptions for MJ (I personally think this is a crock but it doesn't affect me so whatever) were considered legal to possess and use within the sate yet federal agents were slapping these people with federal charges within Colorado. WTF? If a state chooses (by way of it's people, bills, elections, votes and all forms of diplomacy) to give MORE rights to it's people then the federal government has NO right to step in and say they can't. If a state wants to make it legal for it's residents to keep SBRs, suppressors and anything else currently controlled by the ATF so long as they're state residents and the items are all produced within state lines then the ATF should have nothing to say about it the way they currently do. If it never crosses state lines then why should the federal government have anything to say?

These are the places where the federal government has stepped it's bounds. The example given about slavery is a simple case for federal government intervention since black people's civil rights were being infringed upon by indentured servitude blatantly but at the state level some did NOT want to give up the right to own slaves. A right can NOT infringe on another's right or it's not a right at all. This is why the federal government stepped in and the funny thing is that Abraham Lincoln gets all the credit for "freeing the slaves" when he's on record saying that his only concern during the Civil War was keeping the Union together and if that meant making slavery legal he would just as easily choose that. Sure, the end result was the correct one and he gets all the glory but, as mentioned in your links, sometimes the temperature of the nation at the time history occurs is quite different then how the history books get written later one. I digress. The bottom line is that the Federal government should NOT be allowed to take away citizens rights when the state is trying to give them more. If a state or city says you can't own a firearm as a law abiding citizen who's done nothing to warrant such treatment then it is the duty of the federal government to step in and say that the state can NOT infringe upon that individual's right. Checks and balances.