• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Judge: Americans can be forced to decrypt their laptops

Makes me feel better already. Now.. for ICS and Android system level encryption.. hmmm
 
Did you read the link I posted? Because if you read through all of it, or even a portion of it, then it seems that you favor a national government instead of the government that was setup for us by the Founders and Framers of the Constitution. I am all for a smaller federal government and so it seems you favor a bigger national government. You can only choose one, not cherry pick one and then the other.

OstrichSaK said:
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.
Click to expand...

You have confused the BoR with Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. The right to bear arms is NOT enumerated in the Constitution. It is a right which the federal government cannot infringe upon.

OstrichSaK said:
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.
Click to expand...

States have Constitutions, judges, legislators and the like. A state can't just do something that violates their Constitutions unless the people allow it to happen. Tell me, where is it easier to fight tyranny, at the federal level or at the state/local level? The obvious answer is the latter, so why on earth would anyone advocate for more power at the federal level where people will be helpless to make changes. This is exactly what is happening today. Do you really think that Obamacare will be overturned?? If it were at the state/local level, there would be more of a chance of it being abolished/changed.

Thanks for the reply!!
 
9to5cynic said:
This made me smile. It's nice to see that the courts/government are actually doing right by the people (and by that I mean me) at least once and a while.

:D ;D
Click to expand...

Hold that smile. "The judge in the appeal case, Judge Richard Posner, agreed that the officer had to search the phone immediately or risk losing valuable evidence. Judge Posner ruled it was a matter of urgency, arguing it was possible for an accomplice to wipe the phone clean using a computer or other remote device."

Police Given Direct Line To Cell Phone Searches CBS Dallas / Fort Worth
 
OutofDate1980 said:
Hold that smile. "The judge in the appeal case, Judge Richard Posner, agreed that the officer had to search the phone immediately or risk losing valuable evidence. Judge Posner ruled it was a matter of urgency, arguing it was possible for an accomplice to wipe the phone clean using a computer or other remote device."

Police Given Direct Line To Cell Phone Searches CBS Dallas / Fort Worth
Click to expand...

That case seems to me to be a different situation than taking away the right to remain silent by forcing the suspect to cough up an encryption key. But IANAL.
 
cjr72 said:
That case seems to me to be a different situation than taking away the right to remain silent by forcing the suspect to cough up an encryption key. But IANAL.
Click to expand...

The article is related to the 5th amendment, but 4th and 5th amendments can be related.

The court decision, http://www.abajournal.com/files/CellPhones.pdf as cited in the article mentions encryption, wiping data, etc. , so I believe it has some relevancy to the discussion in this thread.
 
mike114 said:
States have Constitutions, judges, legislators and the like. A state can't just do something that violates their Constitutions unless the people allow it to happen. Tell me, where is it easier to fight tyranny, at the federal level or at the state/local level? The obvious answer is the latter, so why on earth would anyone advocate for more power at the federal level where people will be helpless to make changes.
Click to expand...

Obvious? Maybe in Russia, but not the West. It was the federal government in the US who dismantled segregation, if I recall correctly. Right now, I see the European Commission fighting the Hungarians government descent into autocracy, and who ridded Italy of Berlusconi. Of course, it can work the other way, but certainly, it is very very far from obvious.

Oh, also, if they had more far reaching powers, these things could've been done much more effectively.
 
ElasticNinja said:
Obvious? Maybe in Russia, but not the West. It was the federal government in the US who dismantled segregation, if I recall correctly. Right now, I see the European Commission fighting the Hungarians government descent into autocracy, and who ridded Italy of Berlusconi. Of course, it can work the other way, but certainly, it is very very far from obvious.

Oh, also, if they had more far reaching powers, these things could've been done much more effectively.
Click to expand...

You are correct, the Constitution was amended to abolish slavery. That, however, was not to open the door to what is now known as the Incorporation Doctrine. The 14th Amendment paved the way for the federal government to enforce the Bill of Rights on the States which was never the vision of the founders or the actual authors of the 14th Amendment. This has been argued for decades since it has been passed, but the result of it has been that the federal government has gained enormous power over the States.

For a look at how I believe the 14th Amendment should be read, take a look at a lecture done by Tom Woods. It's long, but if you have the time and want to see a reasoned argument, it's well worth it.

The Fourteenth Amendment [Lecture 4] by Thomas Woods - YouTube!
 
mike114 said:
You are correct, the Constitution was amended to abolish slavery. That, however, was not to open the door to what is now known as the Incorporation Doctrine. The 14th Amendment paved the way for the federal government to enforce the Bill of Rights on the States which was never the vision of the founders or the actual authors of the 14th Amendment. This has been argued for decades since it has been passed, but the result of it has been that the federal government has gained enormous power over the States.

For a look at how I believe the 14th Amendment should be read, take a look at a lecture done by Tom Woods. It's long, but if you have the time and want to see a reasoned argument, it's well worth it.

The Fourteenth Amendment [Lecture 4] by Thomas Woods - YouTube!
Click to expand...

Believe this is the Incorporation section. It does say "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." So that includes, but is not inclusive, to the Bill of Rights.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

State Rights was used to justify segregation and other sins. This argument for State Rights has been lost a long time ago.

All the 14th Amendment did was guarantee the Rights most Americans thought they had from being violated by a State government.
 
OutofDate1980 said:
Believe this is the Incorporation section. It does say "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." So that includes, but is not inclusive, to the Bill of Rights.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

State Rights was used to justify segregation and other sins. This argument for State Rights has been lost a long time ago.

All the 14th Amendment did was guarantee the Rights most Americans thought they had from being violated by a State government.
Click to expand...

The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868. James Blaine was a congressman at the time and was there for the debates leading to the ratification of the 14th.

So if what you say is true, why did Speaker Blaine propose the Blaine amendment? The Blaine amendment tried to change the wording in the 1st Amendment from "Congress shall make no law" to "No State shall make any law". What was his purpose for doing so if the 14th Amendment "incorporated" the Bill of Rights onto the States?

The answer is because it didn't. Just because 9 judges have twisted the meaning of the intent doesn't make it so. If this were the case, why would States continue with their own constitutions? There would be no need for them, again, if what you say was the intent of the 14th Amendment.

If you have the time to listen to what I posted, I encourage you to do so. It gives a very good explanation of the 14th and the circumstances surrounding it.

Ans State's Rights was never used for the intent you are accusing them of doing. New York state didn't have slaves, yet they were big advocates of State's Rights. We, as Americans, need to actually look at our history and learn from it. Not look to federal judges to interpret it for us.
 
mike114 said:
... So if what you say is true, why did Speaker Blaine propose the Blaine amendment? The Blaine amendment tried to change the wording in the 1st Amendment from "Congress shall make no law" to "No State shall make any law". What was his purpose for doing so if the 14th Amendment "incorporated" the Bill of Rights onto the States? ...

We, as Americans, need to actually look at our history and learn from it. Not look to federal judges to interpret it for us.
Click to expand...

The proposes Blaine amendment wasn't necessary.

I as an American interpret the Constitution differently from you. I guess that's why we have a Supreme Court.
 
OutofDate1980 said:
The proposes Blaine amendment wasn't necessary.

I as an American interpret the Constitution differently from you. I guess that's why we have a Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

The trouble is the Supreme Court doesn't have the power to interpret the Constitution. Article 3 of the Constitution doesn't give the court "interpretive" powers. It gives the court power to make rulings based on the Constitution. There is a huge difference between the two.

But that doesn't answer the question. If the original purpose of the 14th Amendment was to incorporate the Bill of Rights onto the States, why was an amendment proposed at a later date to actually do that? And keep in mind, it was proposed by a man who was present as a congressman at the ratification hearings.

And so unfortunately, I as an American want a limited national government in order to enhance my freedoms, liberties and choices and others want an all powerful government that we citizens (States) have no recourse against. I'm pretty sure that's not what our founders envisioned.

Unfortunately, because of this, we get things like Obamacare.
 
And let me ask one last thing since you seem to have some faith in the Supreme Court. When was the last time that court ruled a law passed by congress and signed into law was unConstitutional? The answer should shock you.
 
mike114 said:
...When was the last time that court ruled a law passed by congress and signed into law was unConstitutional? The answer should shock you.
Click to expand...

On January 21, 2010. Supreme Court Overturns Campaign Spending Limits on Corporations - ABC News

"In a significant reversal of court precedent, the Supreme Court today invalidated decades-old federal legislation restricting corporate spending in political campaigns.

In a 5-4 decision, the court called into question the constitutionality of all federal and state regulation of independent corporate political advocacy, including a federal law dating back to 1947 and the laws of dozens of states"
 
mike114 said:
...If the original purpose of the 14th Amendment was to incorporate the Bill of Rights onto the States, why was an amendment proposed at a later date to actually do that? And keep in mind, it was proposed by a man who was present as a congressman at the ratification hearings.....
Click to expand...

To overturn prior interpretations of the constitution made by the Supreme Court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom