obama supportts dna sampling upon arrest

[rightwinger]

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

Yes, they're called "States"

Can you say "States"?

Your concept of the United "States" has been gone for 140 years

Thank god it ain't coming back

 

[American Horse]

<SNIP>

To me our system is set up wonderfully where we can challenge things if our freedoms are infringed, change them with amendments when things change. I know conservatives hate this, but it is a living document and IMO set up that way to account for the changing times.

Gregg, you misconstrue the meaning of the phrase “living document” Conservatives are absolutely for amending the constitution. That is the hangup; they oppose changing the constitution by fiat by activist judges of whatever ideology because of different or more “current” interpretations of words in the document. When that happens “it’s a living document” and THAT is opposed by conservatives, not amending. Please do a search on the phrase and read up.

Once you have educated yourself on things political, you might turn out to be a conservative.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

Yes, they're called "States"

Can you say "States"?

Your concept of the United "States" has been gone for 140 years

Thank god it ain't coming back

So 4th Amendment means you hand your DNA and a Health Care proxy to Papa Obama?

 

[Dr Gregg]

<SNIP>

To me our system is set up wonderfully where we can challenge things if our freedoms are infringed, change them with amendments when things change. I know conservatives hate this, but it is a living document and IMO set up that way to account for the changing times.

Gregg, you misconstrue the meaning of the phrase “living document” Conservatives are absolutely for amending the constitution. That is the hangup; they oppose changing the constitution by fiat by activist judges of whatever ideology because of different or more “current” interpretations of words in the document. When that happens “it’s a living document” and THAT is opposed by conservatives, not amending. Please do a search on the phrase and read up.

Once you have educated yourself on things political, you might turn out to be a conservative.

Then why have a SCOTUS then if they weren't their to interpret the constitution and rule on new laws that are passed if they weren't supposed to do that? The "activist judges" to me is pretty tired argument. I fail to see many conservatives here show me they are "educated on all things political" so I doubt that will be true.

 

[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"?

Your concept of the United "States" has been gone for 140 years

Thank god it ain't coming back

So 4th Amendment means you hand your DNA and a Health Care proxy to Papa Obama?

You still have failed to explain why the 4th amendment is violated by DNA profile going on file, like fingerprints, and how your privacy is invaded by that

 

[rightwinger]

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

Yes, they're called "States"

Can you say "States"?

Your concept of the United "States" has been gone for 140 years

Thank god it ain't coming back

So 4th Amendment means you hand your DNA and a Health Care proxy to Papa Obama?

Sorry, but you are once again about 40 years behind the times. What constitutes a reasonable search and seizure, especially once you have been arrested is well established

Ever hear of a body cavity search?

Going door to door to collect DNA is a violation of the 4th Amendment because there is no "probable cause". Once you are arrested, probable cause has already been established

 

[American Horse]

<SNIP>

To me our system is set up wonderfully where we can challenge things if our freedoms are infringed, change them with amendments when things change. I know conservatives hate this, but it is a living document and IMO set up that way to account for the changing times.

Gregg, you misconstrue the meaning of the phrase &#8220;living document&#8221; Conservatives are absolutely for amending the constitution. That is the hangup; they oppose changing the constitution by fiat by activist judges of whatever ideology because of different or more &#8220;current&#8221; interpretations of words in the document. When that happens &#8220;it&#8217;s a living document&#8221; and THAT is opposed by conservatives, not amending. Please do a search on the phrase and read up.

Once you have educated yourself on things political, you might turn out to be a conservative.

Then why have a SCOTUS then if they weren't their to interpret the constitution and rule on new laws that are passed if they weren't supposed to do that? The "activist judges" to me is pretty tired argument. I fail to see many conservatives here show me they are "educated on all things political" so I doubt that will be true.

It's a real issue. And most times these issues do not reach the SC, they are settled in lower courts of appeal. And this is a major division of the court; some judges even wanting to base their decisions on foreign courts rather than taking the original words of the constitution, so you can see how loosely interpretations of the document could become.

If the words mean nothing of their original meaning, then the rule book can be arbitrarily changed, and the changes will accelerate. We should be willing to amend the constitution by using the method set down in the self-same document. This is a part of the reason the constitution is so brief.

The European Union constitution on the other hand has some70,000 words and the language is impenetrable There is plenty of room for ambiguities in that monstrosity.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Gregg, you misconstrue the meaning of the phrase “living document” Conservatives are absolutely for amending the constitution. That is the hangup; they oppose changing the constitution by fiat by activist judges of whatever ideology because of different or more “current” interpretations of words in the document. When that happens “it’s a living document” and THAT is opposed by conservatives, not amending. Please do a search on the phrase and read up.

Once you have educated yourself on things political, you might turn out to be a conservative.

Then why have a SCOTUS then if they weren't their to interpret the constitution and rule on new laws that are passed if they weren't supposed to do that? The "activist judges" to me is pretty tired argument. I fail to see many conservatives here show me they are "educated on all things political" so I doubt that will be true.

It's a real issue. And most times these issues do not reach the SC, they are settled in lower courts of appeal. And this is a major division of the court; some judges even wanting to base their decisions on foreign courts rather than taking the original words of the constitution, so you can see how loosely interpretations of the document could be. If the words mean nothing because of their original meaning, then the rule book can be arbitrarily changed, and the changes will accelerate. We should be willing to amend the constitution by using the method set down in the self-same document.

But the constitution can be vague on particular things, and IMO they were written that way on purpose. But this has been and will be an argument that will likely always continue. The precedent that has been set in this country favors my opinion, whether its right or not, that's the way has been and likely will continue to be.

 

[American Horse]

Then why have a SCOTUS then if they weren't their to interpret the constitution and rule on new laws that are passed if they weren't supposed to do that? The "activist judges" to me is pretty tired argument. I fail to see many conservatives here show me they are "educated on all things political" so I doubt that will be true.

It's a real issue. And most times these issues do not reach the SC, they are settled in lower courts of appeal. And this is a major division of the court; some judges even wanting to base their decisions on foreign courts rather than taking the original words of the constitution, so you can see how loosely interpretations of the document could be. If the words mean nothing because of their original meaning, then the rule book can be arbitrarily changed, and the changes will accelerate. We should be willing to amend the constitution by using the method set down in the self-same document.

But the constitution can be vague on particular things, and IMO they were written that way on purpose. But this has been and will be an argument that will likely always continue. The precedent that has been set in this country favors my opinion, whether its right or not, that's the way has been and likely will continue to be.

Here we disagree. I always thought the constitution was clear and concise (2,000 words) even to an average person like myself (I only have trouble with a few lines). Anyone, and particularly attorneys educated in the law should derive the same meaning.

 

[Dr Gregg]

It's a real issue. And most times these issues do not reach the SC, they are settled in lower courts of appeal. And this is a major division of the court; some judges even wanting to base their decisions on foreign courts rather than taking the original words of the constitution, so you can see how loosely interpretations of the document could be. If the words mean nothing because of their original meaning, then the rule book can be arbitrarily changed, and the changes will accelerate. We should be willing to amend the constitution by using the method set down in the self-same document.

But the constitution can be vague on particular things, and IMO they were written that way on purpose. But this has been and will be an argument that will likely always continue. The precedent that has been set in this country favors my opinion, whether its right or not, that's the way has been and likely will continue to be.

Here we disagree. I always thought the constitution was clear and concise (2,000 words) even to an average person like myself (I only have trouble with a few lines). Anyone, and particularly attorneys educated in the law should derive the same meaning.

But most laws are not short, as in order to be clear and concise, many laws are monstrosities, because of the way one word being put in can be argued to have completely different meanings. Hence why legal documents tend to be very long winded

 

[American Horse]

But the constitution can be vague on particular things, and IMO they were written that way on purpose. But this has been and will be an argument that will likely always continue. The precedent that has been set in this country favors my opinion, whether its right or not, that's the way has been and likely will continue to be.

Here we disagree. I always thought the constitution was clear and concise (2,000 words) even to an average person like myself (I only have trouble with a few lines). Anyone, and particularly attorneys educated in the law should derive the same meaning.

But most laws are not short, as in order to be clear and concise, many laws are monstrosities, because of the way one word being put in can be argued to have completely different meanings. Hence why legal documents tend to be very long winded

My own experience in having legal documents drafted, is that every effort is made TO NOT CONFUSE any sensible interpretation of the document. Laws are intended to be written in the same way. A lot of what is seen in a bill (like the healthcare legislation) is full of cross references to other connected existing laws. So yes, they are long, but the constitutional questions come down to one violation at a time.

But an entire law is not challenged. When there is a challenge it is a singular item. The component parts of a law (or act) are challenged constitutionally piecemeal. Taken that way, ignoring all the references to other legislation which might be affected, a specific section of a law or act is not all that difficult to understand.

Take what is commonly called McCain/Feingold (The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 or the BCRA) as an example. The act is quite long, and includes many provisions, and the enforcement of this law is by the Federal Election Commission. They (their career attorneys) interpret it through a review process, and enforce it through FEC regulations . The way it affects people (or candidates) are fairly clear for everyone concerned.

And equally true, there wouldn&#8217;t seem to be much room for confusion in the applicable section of the Constitution; the First Amendment:

&#8220;Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.&#8221;

In most challenges to BCRA there are three key words that usually apply and their meanings need to be construed: abridging, freedom, and speech. And therein lies the rub. Among the three, the most likely to be misconstrued in meaning is first &#8216;speech,&#8217; followed by &#8216;abridging,&#8217; without much likelihood of misunderstanding &#8216;freedom,&#8217; but one can never be sure about that either.

The Justices of the SC render their decision and it too is clear, but applies only to the question being brought before them; they do not (usually) go beyond the case at hand, so it is not as if the whole law or act has to be analyzed, and found to be or not to be constitutional

 

[Dr Gregg]

Here we disagree. I always thought the constitution was clear and concise (2,000 words) even to an average person like myself (I only have trouble with a few lines). Anyone, and particularly attorneys educated in the law should derive the same meaning.

But most laws are not short, as in order to be clear and concise, many laws are monstrosities, because of the way one word being put in can be argued to have completely different meanings. Hence why legal documents tend to be very long winded

My own experience in having legal documents drafted, is that every effort is made TO NOT CONFUSE any sensible interpretation of the document. Laws are intended to be written in the same way. A lot of what is seen in a bill (like the healthcare legislation) is full of cross references to other connected existing laws. So yes, they are long, but the constitutional questions come down to one violation at a time.

But an entire law is not challenged. When there is a challenge it is a singular item. The component parts of a law (or act) are challenged constitutionally piecemeal. Taken that way, ignoring all the references to other legislation which might be affected, a specific section of a law or act is not all that difficult to understand.

Take what is commonly called McCain/Feingold (The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 or the BCRA) as an example. The act is quite long, and includes many provisions, and the enforcement of this law is by the Federal Election Commission. They (their career attorneys) interpret it through a review process, and enforce it through FEC regulations . The way it affects people (or candidates) are fairly clear for everyone concerned.

And equally true, there wouldn’t seem to be much room for confusion in the applicable section of the Constitution; the First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

In most challenges to BCRA there are three key words that usually apply and their meanings need to be construed: abridging, freedom, and speech. And therein lies the rub. Among the three, the most likely to be misconstrued in meaning is first ‘speech,’ followed by ‘abridging,’ without much likelihood of misunderstanding ‘freedom,’ but one can never be sure about that either.

The Justices of the SC render their decision and it too is clear, but applies only to the question being brought before them; they do not (usually) go beyond the case at hand, so it is not as if the whole law or act has to be analyzed, and found to be or not to be constitutional

I'm studying patent law right now, hope to take the patent bar within the next two months. Although not like most other legal documents, I plan on doing some legal drafting myself soon

 

[American Horse]

I'm studying patent law right now, hope to take the patent bar within the next two months. Although not like most other legal documents, I plan on doing some legal drafting myself soon

Good luck with your legal work.

 

[sherp]

I never thought the day would come that I would be in agreement with Obama but I totally agree with this viewpoint. We need every tool we can get to fight crime, particulary those child molesters, murders and rapist. I highly support a National DNA Data Bank.

 

[MaggieMae]

<SNIP>

To me our system is set up wonderfully where we can challenge things if our freedoms are infringed, change them with amendments when things change. I know conservatives hate this, but it is a living document and IMO set up that way to account for the changing times.

Gregg, you misconstrue the meaning of the phrase “living document” Conservatives are absolutely for amending the constitution. That is the hangup; they oppose changing the constitution by fiat by activist judges of whatever ideology because of different or more “current” interpretations of words in the document. When that happens “it’s a living document” and THAT is opposed by conservatives, not amending. Please do a search on the phrase and read up.

Once you have educated yourself on things political, you might turn out to be a conservative.

The Constitution provides the basic tenets for the country's rule of law. I continue to maintain that if it was not intended to be a "living document" to include necessary laws as the nation grew in population, diversity, education, inventions and other technological advancements, while not directly violating any of the basic tenets, then the framers would have put a time frame on the Constitution and it would have to be renewed every so often.

Benjamin Franklin said, upon the signing of the Constitution, "Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain except death and taxes." As predicted, the American people began the process of amending the Constitution soon as the ink dried.

 

[MaggieMae]

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

Yes, they're called "States"

Can you say "States"?

Your concept of the United "States" has been gone for 140 years

Thank god it ain't coming back

So 4th Amendment means you hand your DNA and a Health Care proxy to Papa Obama?

But apparently the Fourth Amendment allows Sheriff Joe Aropio to do anything he pleases, correct? Ironically, I'm actually positive that the big bad sheriff would welcome such an automatic DNA sample from everyone he has arrested.

 

[MaggieMae]

It's a real issue. And most times these issues do not reach the SC, they are settled in lower courts of appeal. And this is a major division of the court; some judges even wanting to base their decisions on foreign courts rather than taking the original words of the constitution, so you can see how loosely interpretations of the document could be. If the words mean nothing because of their original meaning, then the rule book can be arbitrarily changed, and the changes will accelerate. We should be willing to amend the constitution by using the method set down in the self-same document.

But the constitution can be vague on particular things, and IMO they were written that way on purpose. But this has been and will be an argument that will likely always continue. The precedent that has been set in this country favors my opinion, whether its right or not, that's the way has been and likely will continue to be.

Here we disagree. I always thought the constitution was clear and concise (2,000 words) even to an average person like myself (I only have trouble with a few lines). Anyone, and particularly attorneys educated in the law should derive the same meaning.

It was clear and concise for the time. Take defense, as an example. Article I provides for the establishment of the armed forces, and the Second Amendment quantifies that for a well-armed militia. But there is nothing in the Constitution that says we shall build a nuclear arsenal as part of the "defense" of our country. The framers of the Constitution could not possibly have known what the words...provide for common defense... would mean 220 years later!

 

[rightwinger]

Your concept of the United "States" has been gone for 140 years

Thank god it ain't coming back

So 4th Amendment means you hand your DNA and a Health Care proxy to Papa Obama?

But apparently the Fourth Amendment allows Sheriff Joe Aropio to do anything he pleases, correct? Ironically, I'm actually positive that the big bad sheriff would welcome such an automatic DNA sample from everyone he has arrested.

I would hate to see how he extracts it

 

[Dr Grump]

Most places started doing this awhile ago, dipshit!
My city has been doing since at least 2002, and it has been very effective when catching CRIMIMALS! If you have not commented a crime, you have nothing to worry about.

I have to disagree with this (not about Frank being a dipshit - that's a given, but the rest of the post)..

I don't have a problem with DNA being taken once the offender has been found guilty, not arrested. You are innocent until proven guilty...once guilt has been established, take the sample...

 

[86DuDE]

Allowing your DNA to be collected is akin to possibly incriminating yourself in a future investigation. So in fact what this is is a record that you were at a certain place in time. In that sense taking your DNA is no different than taking you down town to answer questions or even a warrant to search CCTV records at the local gas and Slurp. The point is that it constitutes a search, and there are rules that must be followed. A supposed Harvard grad like Obama should no better than this, but Change man is not interested in your civil liberties, no he's much more interested in control.