obama supportts dna sampling upon arrest

[Luissa]

Maybe you can explain how this violates the 4th amendment.

Because its the federal Government trying to set the precedent.

Why do we even have states?

Do you have any idea at all of how the government was set up?

yes, lets have 50 different essentially "countries" with all different types of rules, regulations, what a clusterfuck that would be. there needs to be some centralized rules and regulations.

I've know how the gov't is set up, maybe you need to learn that if something is indeed unconstitutional, the SC would rule on it as being so, checks and balances, exactly how the gov't was set up.

And with it being widely used for a few years now, if there had been a problem with it, the Supreme court would have already ruled on this.

 

[tigerbob]

I've spent the last half hour or so trawling round websites, looking for information that indicates whether a DNA sample (of the type routinely taken and stored as a result of criminal investigations) can be used as an indicator of how susceptible an individual may be to develop certain genetic disorders.

Thus far, I've found several sources that seem to point to it not being possible to extrapolate propensity for certain medical conditions, and none that say it is possible. One would have thought that with such a strident level of disagreement there would be easy to locate evidence supporting both points of view.

Has anyone else (other than Gregg, who has already provided some feedback on this) found any evidence that DNA samples can be used to determine the likelihood of developing a chronic condition?

Since this issue has been my main reason for not supporting a DNA database, I'm surprised not to be able to easily find facts that support my position.

Maybe I just haven't looked hard enough. Has anyone else?

 

[American Horse]

Maybe you can explain how this violates the 4th amendment.

Because its the federal Government trying to set the precedent.

Why do we even have states?

Do you have any idea at all of how the government was set up?

yes, lets have 50 different essentially "countries" with all different types of rules, regulations, what a clusterfuck that would be. there needs to be some centralized rules and regulations.

I've know how the gov't is set up, maybe you need to learn that if something is indeed unconstitutional, the SC would rule on it as being so, checks and balances, exactly how the gov't was set up.

It is mplied in your statement that the SC takes up constitutional issues on its own initiative; not so. No consitutional issue is taken up by the SC without a suit that has made it's way to the SC through normal judicial circuits. AND no individual (or party) can bring a suit on a constitutional issue without "standing." Standing meand that they are harmed by the law in question. The SC will not, on its own hook, undertake to evaluate the consitutionality of any law or presidential order without the conditioins I've described being met. Do you, Dr. Gregg, see the imlications inherent in this fact?

 

[Dr Gregg]

Because its the federal Government trying to set the precedent.

Why do we even have states?

Do you have any idea at all of how the government was set up?

yes, lets have 50 different essentially "countries" with all different types of rules, regulations, what a clusterfuck that would be. there needs to be some centralized rules and regulations.

I've know how the gov't is set up, maybe you need to learn that if something is indeed unconstitutional, the SC would rule on it as being so, checks and balances, exactly how the gov't was set up.

It is mplied in your statement that the SC takes up constitutional issues on its own initiative; not so. No consitutional issue is taken up by the SC without a suit that has made it's way to the SC through normal judicial circuits. AND no individual (or party) can bring a suit on a constitutional issue without "standing." Standing meand that they are harmed by the law in question. The SC will not, on its own hook, undertake to evaluate the consitutionality of any law or presidential order without the conditioins I've described being met. Do you, Dr. Gregg, see the imlications inherent in this fact?

yes, I know, so why don't people bring up a case? If htey bitch so much about it, and think its "harming them", why not bring up a case? If someone is bitching about things being unconstitutional, obviously it must harm or effect them, no? But I'm pretty sure it doesn't harm them, its the dishonest hackery and love affair with ideology.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Maybe you can explain how this violates the 4th amendment.

Because its the federal Government trying to set the precedent.

Why do we even have states?

Do you have any idea at all of how the government was set up?

yes, lets have 50 different essentially "countries" with all different types of rules, regulations, what a clusterfuck that would be. there needs to be some centralized rules and regulations.

I've know how the gov't is set up, maybe you need to learn that if something is indeed unconstitutional, the SC would rule on it as being so, checks and balances, exactly how the gov't was set up.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7zfnbdyAW8]YouTube - Sean Penn/Jeff Spicoli - You dick![/ame]

 

[Dr Gregg]

Wow, Crusader frank showing his brilliance once again. Great argument, you win

 

[American Horse]

yes, lets have 50 different essentially "countries" with all different types of rules, regulations, what a clusterfuck that would be. there needs to be some centralized rules and regulations.

I've know how the gov't is set up, maybe you need to learn that if something is indeed unconstitutional, the SC would rule on it as being so, checks and balances, exactly how the gov't was set up.

It is mplied in your statement that the SC takes up constitutional issues on its own initiative; not so. No consitutional issue is taken up by the SC without a suit that has made it's way to the SC through normal judicial circuits. AND no individual (or party) can bring a suit on a constitutional issue without "standing." Standing meand that they are harmed by the law in question. The SC will not, on its own hook, undertake to evaluate the consitutionality of any law or presidential order without the conditioins I've described being met. Do you, Dr. Gregg, see the imlications inherent in this fact?

yes, I know, so why don't people bring up a case? If htey bitch so much about it, and think its "harming them", why not bring up a case? If someone is bitching about things being unconstitutional, obviously it must harm or effect them, no? But I'm pretty sure it doesn't harm them, its the dishonest hackery and love affair with ideology.

I don't think you understand how difficult and costly it is to bring a case on such a complex issue to the SC. (I know, it doesn't seem at all complex but in reality is is) It was designed to be difficult so that only the most important ones would rise to that level. How does one show damage? The usual way is to show some monetary or porperty loss, a loss of a right like a civil right takes someone who truly understands how that would take place. It also, most likely needs some very smart attorney (actually a FIRM of attorneys) willing to do pro-bono work, forecasting that it would bring future work of the same type.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wow, Crusader frank showing his brilliance once again. Great argument, you win

It's much more to the point than trying to educate you on Constitution 101.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

yes, lets have 50 different essentially "countries" with all different types of rules, regulations,...

Yes, they're called "States"

Can you say "States"?

 

[Dr Gregg]

It is mplied in your statement that the SC takes up constitutional issues on its own initiative; not so. No consitutional issue is taken up by the SC without a suit that has made it's way to the SC through normal judicial circuits. AND no individual (or party) can bring a suit on a constitutional issue without "standing." Standing meand that they are harmed by the law in question. The SC will not, on its own hook, undertake to evaluate the consitutionality of any law or presidential order without the conditioins I've described being met. Do you, Dr. Gregg, see the imlications inherent in this fact?

yes, I know, so why don't people bring up a case? If htey bitch so much about it, and think its "harming them", why not bring up a case? If someone is bitching about things being unconstitutional, obviously it must harm or effect them, no? But I'm pretty sure it doesn't harm them, its the dishonest hackery and love affair with ideology.

I don't think you understand how difficult and costly it is to bring a case on such a complex issue to the SC. (I know, it doesn't seem at all complex but in reality is is) It was designed to be difficult so that only the most important ones would rise to that level. How does one show damage? The usual way is to show some monetary or porperty loss, a loss of a right like a civil right takes someone who truly understands how that would take place. It also, most likely needs some very smart attorney (actually a FIRM of attorneys) willing to do pro-bono work, forecasting that it would bring future work of the same type.

but politics is loaded with money. If there is vast amount of resources for campaigns, and political organizations that can indeed fund such a fight. I mean, it does get done, SCOTUS does work and makes decisions, so there is money to go to the SC. In all likelihood, these groups and lawyers know more about the law than the laymen on here that claim its "unconstitutional", and realize they likely won't win.

 

[Dr Gregg]

yes, lets have 50 different essentially "countries" with all different types of rules, regulations,...

Yes, they're called "States"

Can you say "States"?

Can you make an argument instead of being a troll? don't think so

If every state had their own set of rules and regulation on everything, it would essentially be different "countries". Can you say "use your brain"?

 

[Dr Gregg]

Wow, Crusader frank showing his brilliance once again. Great argument, you win

It's much more to the point than trying to educate you on Constitution 101.

Nice dodge. face it, you have nothing

 

[MaggieMae]

Let's just install the microchips in our brains now and get it over with.

Oh please...if it called for DNA samples at birth, you'd have something there. But I have absolutely no problem with taking DNA samples when someone is arrested. Why on earth would anyone? It's an accurate measurement of one's identity, just like fingerprints but fingerprints aren't usually found on, say, a woman's genitals after she's been raped.

 

[MaggieMae]

cheney would be proud:

Obama Supports DNA Sampling Upon Arrest | Threat Level | Wired.com

complete bullshit

I have no problem with this...I've had to give dna samples on several occasions my last few years in...mostly for ID purposes if I was blown to smitherines...but I'm in the National Database now.

I would agree. This would be a deterrent to a resorting any further to crime, especially violent crimes. Why? Because in any future criminal act you could be identified like you would be with a fingerprint from any dna evidence left at any crime scene.

Only people in the military service and criminals have prints recorded in the fingerprint data-base, so until a crime is first committed no record of a fingerprint exists.

If a person was found to be not guilty of any crime, or if their criminal deed were expunged because of some youthful mistake, the dna could be expunged too; but why do that? My own fingerprints still exist in the fingerprint database if military records are. Not ever having committed a criminal act, I'm not at all concerned.

Fingerprints are taken for any employment in government service, at least they were when I got my first job with Civil Service. Also, you will be fingerprinted for first responder employment, when you apply for a passport or if you apply for a visa to another country.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

yes, lets have 50 different essentially "countries" with all different types of rules, regulations,...

Yes, they're called "States"

Can you say "States"?

Can you make an argument instead of being a troll? don't think so

If every state had their own set of rules and regulation on everything, it would essentially be different "countries". Can you say "use your brain"?

Are you really that fucking retarded? How do you suppose the country was established? What do you think the 10th Amendment says?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7zfnbdyAW8]YouTube - Sean Penn/Jeff Spicoli - You dick![/ame]

 

[MaggieMae]

I have no problem with this...I've had to give dna samples on several occasions my last few years in...mostly for ID purposes if I was blown to smitherines...but I'm in the National Database now.

Bull. I was forced to and felt and still feel my privacy was invaded. You might be comfortable being a lag rat, but I'm not.

You privacy WAS invaded!! They can even make a clone of you if they wanted!

Somehow I get the feeling Gunny would like that. He could just send Junior out to slap you around while he polishes his boots.

 

[MaggieMae]

Bull. I was forced to and felt and still feel my privacy was invaded. You might be comfortable being a lag rat, but I'm not.

You privacy WAS invaded!! They can even make a clone of you if they wanted!

At the time, all that cloning crap was big in the news and that was EXACTLY what I was thinking.

Then again, an army of "Gunny's" would be cool.

Uh oh, I should have kept reading before I posted the same thing ^. Now people are going to think you and I are BFFs and they'll start to fret.

 

[Dr Gregg]

yes, lets have 50 different essentially "countries" with all different types of rules, regulations,...

Yes, they're called "States"

Can you say "States"?

Can you make an argument instead of being a troll? don't think so

If every state had their own set of rules and regulation on everything, it would essentially be different "countries". Can you say "use your brain"?

Are you really that fucking retarded? How do you suppose the country was established? What do you think the 10th Amendment says?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7zfnbdyAW8]YouTube - Sean Penn/Jeff Spicoli - You dick![/ame]

Have you ignored the last 200 years, where there is a federal gov't and central regulation?

 

[MaggieMae]

Bull. I was forced to and felt and still feel my privacy was invaded. You might be comfortable being a lag rat, but I'm not.

I don't feel that my privacy was invaded any more than when my fingerprints were taken.


BTW...we've had two horrific kidnapping/rape/murders here in the San Diego area in the last year...they FINALLY caught the guy based on DNA dead to rights on one case, and that seems to have led to FINALLY finding the body of the second poor girl. I'm not really feeling like it's a problem.

Of course you don't. I don't have a problem with it being used for good. I DO have a problem with it being misused. And our government misuses any and everything it gets its hands on.

How could DNA be "misused"?? It is, after all, 99% specific.

 

[MaggieMae]

That's pretty much where I'm at.

They take mug shots on arrest and fingerprint you. Having a DNA swab is no different. It also provides an opportunity to screen you for involvement in any other unsolved crimes.

Under the fourth amendment it is not an unreasonable search

It's an invasion of privacy, period.

So is strip searching when someone is arrested, which is ALL this is covering.