What would you consider the limits of "interstate commerce" to be? Great, by your logic the TSA will start policing buses even more, and then cars. Can't just have people crossing state lines without proper security now can we.
What is your point, exactly? We can't criticize the judgement of those with "decision-making power"? Just because the Supreme Court rules a certain way doesn't mean their reasoning is valid. Sure, it makes it law, but we can still laugh at them when they base things on fallacies or poor reading comprehension.
The reason for this is simple. If your child is kidnapped by an insane pedophile, you want the Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) to use everything they can to find that guy.
Sure, within the limits of the law and, in the US at least, the Constitution.
If a record of tweets, blogs, phone calls and IMs helps them do that, it could save your child.
So could putting cameras in all our houses. Where do we draw the line? I'd rather not live in a police state for the few times it may be convenient.
Privacy is a great idea, but there are a lot of bad guys out there and we want to keep tabs on them. I think a better solution is to find a government we can trust.
What Australia does is irrelevant to what people should or should not do. The rest of your post is just hopelessly naive. People can change unexpectedly. Getting a prenup isn't saying you plan on getting a divorce. It's protecting yourself in case your spouse's brain goes nuts one day and everything changes.
Slashdot Mirror
What would you consider the limits of "interstate commerce" to be? Great, by your logic the TSA will start policing buses even more, and then cars. Can't just have people crossing state lines without proper security now can we.
What is your point, exactly? We can't criticize the judgement of those with "decision-making power"? Just because the Supreme Court rules a certain way doesn't mean their reasoning is valid. Sure, it makes it law, but we can still laugh at them when they base things on fallacies or poor reading comprehension.
I disagree because I disagree that this was the original intent of the commerce clause.
Hardcore libertarians and anarchists promote them as a reasonable set of rights a person should have, which I find disgusting.
Care to elaborate on what you find so disgusting about these rights?
Are you serious or just trolling?
The reason for this is simple. If your child is kidnapped by an insane pedophile, you want the Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) to use everything they can to find that guy.
Sure, within the limits of the law and, in the US at least, the Constitution.
If a record of tweets, blogs, phone calls and IMs helps them do that, it could save your child.
So could putting cameras in all our houses. Where do we draw the line? I'd rather not live in a police state for the few times it may be convenient.
Privacy is a great idea, but there are a lot of bad guys out there and we want to keep tabs on them. I think a better solution is to find a government we can trust.
Good luck with that.
What Australia does is irrelevant to what people should or should not do. The rest of your post is just hopelessly naive. People can change unexpectedly. Getting a prenup isn't saying you plan on getting a divorce. It's protecting yourself in case your spouse's brain goes nuts one day and everything changes.
troll