Do you think the FBI, CIA, and NSA are unconstitutional? - Page 2

Diesel66 · 12-13-2006, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by lew

But that's the point. "Federal crimes" are themselves unconstitutional.

Sorry but the Constitution specifically mentions 3 crimes. States have no right/ability to prosecute anyone for those crimes.

And so is "federal land."

Sorry, DC is in the constitution. Plus post offices and judicial buildings.

For the criminals that cross state boundaries, it just requires states to work together - something they already do.

And the FBI handles most of the cases.

lew · 12-13-2006, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Sorry but the Constitution specifically mentions 3 crimes. States have no right/ability to prosecute anyone for those crimes. Sorry, DC is in the constitution. Plus post offices and judicial buildings.
And the FBI handles most of the cases.

You know what I mean. Yes, there are three specific federal crimes. But what the feds do now in regards to crime is just a wee bit more than three crimes. And DC is the only exception, being that it is again, in the Constitution.

If the FBI were limited to only these three types of cases, then it could be argued that it is a constitutional agency. But again, they don't.

Donkey® · 12-13-2006, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by lew

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

16th amendment.

ballz2wallz · 12-13-2006, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by lew

No. Because our Presidents protected this country fine for a century before te FBI was created. And if Presidents can enact whatever they want in the name of the protection of our country, that would give them unlimited power.

Buddy, things in the world were COMPLETELY different back then. We can either choose to live in the times and be leaders in the world, or we can be like Muslim countries and live in teh stone-ages, because our 'constitution says so', while other countries are running circles around us regarding national security and interests. I know which one I prefer.

lew · 12-13-2006, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

16th amendment.

I understand that. But just like the 18th Amendment was overturned, I'd like the same to be done to the 16th.

lew · 12-13-2006, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Buddy, things in the world were COMPLETELY different back then. We can either choose to live in the times and be leaders in the world, or we can be like Muslim countries and live in teh stone-ages, because our 'constitution says so', while other countries are running circles around us regarding national security and interests. I know which one I prefer.

Sorry buddy (

), but I'd prefer to live in a country that abides by it's liberty loving Constitution than one that tramples on its citizen's God given rights in the name of technology, security, war, protection, or any other farce.

Diesel66 · 12-13-2006, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by lew

You know what I mean. Yes, there are three specific federal crimes. But what the feds do now in regards to crime is just a wee bit more than three crimes. And DC is the only exception, being that it is again, in the Constitution.

If the FBI were limited to only these three types of cases, then it could be argued that it is a constitutional agency. But again, they don't.

Again it doesnt matter. Congress has the right to buy land. That land must have federal police assigned to it or it will be anarchy. I know you love anarchy but the world doesnt. Federal police force of some type is 100% constitutional. The Secret Service and US Marshall forces are perfect for the strict Constitutional viewpoint.

Originally Posted by lew

Sorry buddy ( ), but I'd prefer to live in a country that abides by it's liberty loving Constitution than one that tramples on its citizen's God given rights in the name of technology, security, war, protection, or any other farce.

Govt buying land for Americans to use (national parks) tramples our God given rights ?

lew · 12-13-2006, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Again it doesnt matter. Congress has the right to buy land. That land must have federal police assigned to it or it will be anarchy. I know you love anarchy but the world doesnt. Federal police force of some type is 100% constitutional. The Secret Service and US Marshall forces are perfect for the strict Constitutional viewpoint.

Federal police of themselves in the examples you have given can be constitutional. Unfortunately, in most cases, these agencies engage into activities that cannot be argued constitutional.

lew · 12-13-2006, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Govt buying land for Americans to use (national parks) tramples our God given rights ?

Yes. If the government bought that, it impedes upon private property rights and capitalism. As nice as national parks are, property rights are a right that is being trampled upon by the Constitution seizing land.

And btw, while I favor anarcho-capitalism, I'd be perfectly happy with a limited constitutional government, such as that created by the Founding Fathers.

Diesel66 · 12-13-2006, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Yes. If the government bought that, it impedes upon private property rights and capitalism. As nice as national parks are, property rights are a right that is being trampled upon by the Constitution seizing land.

explain how the govt buying land in the market place equals trampling of property rights ??

ballz2wallz · 12-13-2006, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Sorry buddy ( ), but I'd prefer to live in a country that abides by it's liberty loving Constitution than one that tramples on its citizen's God given rights in the name of technology, security, war, protection, or any other farce.

I prefer to live in a country that's all of those things, but includes being strong and safe.

lew · 12-13-2006, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

explain how the govt buying land in the market place equals trampling of property rights ??

Federal land such as national parks cannot be bought. That impedes upon the free market and property rights.

lew · 12-13-2006, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I prefer to live in a country that's all of those things, but includes being strong and safe.

I'm all for a country being strong, secure, and safe as well - as long as the government isn't stepping on rights and ignoring the constitution in the process.

Donkey® · 12-13-2006, 04:39 PM

Well, I really don't see people rushing to abolish the National Security Act of 1947 (CIA) or the bills/laws that created the other agencies.

lew · 12-13-2006, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Well, I really don't see people rushing to abolish the National Security Act of 1947 (CIA) or the bills/laws that created the other agencies.

I don't see that either. But I also don't see people rushing to abolish all the other laws that are unconstitutional.

Just the Patriot Act. Since, you know Bush did it and he's evil.

ballz2wallz · 12-13-2006, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by lew

I'm all for a country being strong, secure, and safe as well - as long as the government isn't stepping on rights and ignoring the constitution in the process.

I don't see how the formation of the CIA, FBI, or NSA has abolished anyone's rights.

lew · 12-13-2006, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I don't see how the formation of the CIA, FBI, or NSA has abolished anyone's rights.

Ask the possibly hundreds of thousands of "communists" that have had their lives destroyed by these agencies the last 100 years.

DosEquis · 12-13-2006, 05:10 PM

I think the CIA and NSA are important tools for investigations having to do with our country, outside of our country. A primary purpose of the CIA/NSA is to spy on our enemies both foreign and domestic, however if a US citizen they must follow the constitutional rights of the suspected enemy. If they are spying on someone in Afghanistan, spy away.

Unfortunately in Nebraska we don't have a spy network to try and catch osama bin forgotten.

The FBI is there to catch people who travel through out the country. Their investigative resources are far greater than the local police. The often work together with local law enforcement also. They too must follow the constitution and respect the rights of those who are suspected of a crime. To often our judicial system feels like it is guilty until proven innocent, instead of innocent until proven guilty.

Without these agencies doing their jobs we would probably be in a completely different condition today. Sure they screw up once in awhile, like WMD in Iraq, but I dont think we should scrap them completely.

There are a LOT of things we do today that are not in the constitution, but I am not ready to buy that because something is not included that it makes it unconstitutional. It talks of an army, navy, and militia. There is no airforce there so does that make the airforce branch of the military unconstitutional?

Scrum · 12-13-2006, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Buddy, things in the world were COMPLETELY different back then. We can either choose to live in the times and be leaders in the world, or we can be like Muslim countries and live in teh stone-ages, because our 'constitution says so', while other countries are running circles around us regarding national security and interests. I know which one I prefer.

Good thing the framers put something in the constitution that allows you to change it.

Scrum · 12-13-2006, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

There are a LOT of things we do today that are not in the constitution, but I am not ready to buy that because something is not included that it makes it unconstitutional.

Actually it does. It's the very definition of the word. The constitution lays out what the governenment can do. Anything outside of that means it goes against it.

Does that mean it's right? Not necessarily. Does it mean it's unconstitutional? Yes.