Court: Feds Can Spy On Americans Without Warrants With No Legal Repurcussions | Hacker News Reader

Court: Feds Can Spy On Americans Without Warrants With No Legal Repurcussions

techdirt.com

14 pointsmtgx17 comments

Two words: "2nd Amendment".

There are repercussions for the State violating it's bounds; if and when the will of the People decides there will be.

I'm pretty sure the right to bear arms does not give the people the legal right to violently overthrow the government, which appears to be what you are suggesting.

I'm pretty sure the right to bear arms does not give the people the legal right to violently overthrow the government, which appears to be what you are suggesting.

If it reaches that point, I don't think we're going to be worrying about what the current government considers "legal" or not.

I'm pretty sure that after the government has been violently overthrown there's really not much validity to what that government considered to be legal.

At any rate, the right to bear arms is associated with the concept of defending yourself from tyranny. According to some interpretations that's part of the intent of the right to bear arms, part of what it facilitates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_...

Actually, if you live in New Hampshire, the right to violently overthrow the government is written into the state's constitution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_Constitution#Arti...

That is actually one of the primary purposes of giving the people the right to bear arms. If you are not successful, however, expect to bear the consequences.

First they came for the Muslims...

Is it too late to fight for the rights of the average Joe / Jane who might be white / European (i.e. "real American" in the eyes of the mainstream)?

It's all correlated, you can't advocate torture, bombings, drones, wiretapping, deportations for being here illegally (say, Latinos or Asians who who moved here a little after the Anglo-Saxons got done killing almost all the original Americans) for certain groups and then demand justice for some others.

In cases like this where the court's hands appear to be tied by a bad law, an appeal usually reaches the Supreme Court which will rule on the constitutionality of the law right?

IMHO, INAL, but I doubt this case will reach the Supreme Court.

If you read the opinion, the 9th circuit court has basically declared that Al-Haramain has no standing to claim criminal damages against:

a) The US Government

b) Officials in the US Government

For this case to move forward, Al-Haramain would have to re-establish his standing to sue. To re-establish his standing to sue the US government, he would need to demonstrate in a higher court that the US has in fact waived its right to Sovereign Immunity (see my other post on this thread). To re-establish his standing to sue officials, he would have to establish that they acted maliciously or took some action that made them personally liable, as you can't really sue an office holder of the government for doing their job.

The senators and representatives we directly voted for passed these laws. We know who, exactly, wrote and voted for them. And statistically, most of us will just vote for the same exact people again next time.

How can something be illegal but not punishable?

Sovereign Immunity, I believe.

I read the whole opinion from the 9th circuit last night because I was shocked that the 9th circuit (supposedly one of the most liberal) would hand down such an opinion.

From what I gathered, basically the US can break the law, but the government cannot be held responsible in the courts. The only people who can be held responsible are the office holders themselves (Barak Obama, Robert Muller, etc.). However, in this particular case, the could not be held responsible for damages related to the surveillance since they were just fulfilling their duties as officeholders. And the government itself could not be held responsible, as it had not waived sovereign immunity (a legal principle that says the state (or king!) can do no wrong).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity

Is sovereign immunity a Constitutional right of the Government or something? Or is it just a law passed a long time ago? Because it sounds like something the politicians wanted to pass to save themselves when they overreach, rather than something that was actually done with the citizen's rights and security in mind.

It is a matter of judicial law that was inherited via common law of England. The US government now takes the place of the king -- the 'sovereign'. This has no place in a democracy, and is not supported by the constitution, in my opinion.

I suppose this adds another bullet point to Philip Greenspun's use of "King" instead of "President" when referring to the sovereign head of the USA.

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2009/10/28/is-it-fair-to-...

As far as I know, there is no mention of sovereign immunity in the constitution itself. It seems like it's one of those legal traditions that get passed down (like how parts the United States' legal system come from British Common Law).

In fact, I don't think there's even a law that says the US has sovereign immunity, it's one of those things that just is.

Sad how individual sovereignty has seemingly been forgotten, yet government sovereignty is unquestioned.

It's only a matter of time before this wiretapping system is hacked/misused and a torrent of private communication from famous people is released. Things have yet to get interesting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com