Hand Over Your Keys Or Else.

<sigh> I thought that dahat and I would always disagree on these topics, but it appears that we've found one on which I have to back him up.

There is a big difference between what people think of the USA (or UK) government is and what is actually written down.  And, as phreaks and I have gone over, even some of that is up for interpretation (Amendment 4 anyone?). 

Words like democracy are bandied about in the press because they were probably touched on in grade school, or on TV and they convey a simple idea.  Unfortunately, people don't actually stop to read the details of the constitution. 

Which leads us to SecretSoftware and his delusional ranting.  It's been well established that people can use the 5th amendment to avoid incriminating themselves, or the 4th to avoid unwarranted search and seizure, but once enough evidence has been gathered through other means, you don't get to hide behind the locked box any more. 

Sure, you can just not give them the key, but you'll do jail time until you do and it isn't an erosion of your rights, it an enforcement of the rights of the rest of us.

Otherwise, you could simply hide the bodies and get away with obvious crimes.

Or, like Tom Servo said, come up with some really good plausible deniability.

SecretSoftware wrote:



dahat wrote: Remember... there is NO FEDERAL RIGHT TO VOTE. That being said... let me put it to you this way... how can we be a democracy (of any kind) when a right as clear cut as voting and important to any democracy... is not actually codified in a document such as the US Constitution?

Clearly you did not read the constitution of the USA.

Please refer to the Voting Rights Act of 1965

You see this is why people feel they dont want to reply to your points because your making "much ado about nothing", you want me to waste my valuable time to explain to you elementary stuff that any US citizen would and ought to have known.

Its like going to Physics class of Level 10, with no physics background, and asking the Professor to explain it all to you in one hour. No one is going to baby sit you, go to the library and learn afew things about the democracy that is the United States of America.

Its no wonder that this happened.

Me not replying to your points, is not because I am unable to, its just that I dont have the time to teach you the basics or the history of this country. Go learn and then come debate.

Just Like That.

Seriously, guy, you need to chill right the f*ck out.

dahat wrote:

Remember... there is NO FEDERAL RIGHT TO VOTE. That being said... let me put it to you this way... how can we be a democracy (of any kind) when a right as clear cut as voting and important to any democracy... is not actually codified in a document such as the US Constitution?

Clearly you did not read the constitution of the USA.

Please refer to the Voting Rights Act of 1965

You see this is why people feel they dont want to reply to your points because your making "much ado about nothing", you want me to waste my valuable time to explain to you elementary stuff that any US citizen would and ought to have known.

Its like going to Physics class of Level 10, with no physics background, and asking the Professor to explain it all to you in one hour. No one is going to baby sit you, go to the library and learn afew things about the democracy that is the United States of America.

Which is no wonder this happened :




See this video on MSN Soapbox



Me not replying to your points, is not because I am unable to, its just that I dont have the time to teach you the basics or the history of this country. Go learn and then come debate.

Just Like That.

ScanIAm wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote:  dahat wrote: Remember... there is NO FEDERAL RIGHT TO VOTE. That being said... let me put it to you this way... how can we be a democracy (of any kind) when a right as clear cut as voting and important to any democracy... is not actually codified in a document such as the US Constitution? Clearly you did not read the constitution of the USA. Please refer to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 You see this is why people feel they dont want to reply to your points because your making "much ado about nothing", you want me to waste my valuable time to explain to you elementary stuff that any US citizen would and ought to have known. Its like going to Physics class of Level 10, with no physics background, and asking the Professor to explain it all to you in one hour. No one is going to baby sit you, go to the library and learn afew things about the democracy that is the United States of America. Its no wonder that this happened. Me not replying to your points, is not because I am unable to, its just that I dont have the time to teach you the basics or the history of this country. Go learn and then come debate. Just Like That.

Seriously, guy, you need to chill right the f*ck out.

Why?

dahat wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote:  dahat wrote: Remember... there is NO FEDERAL RIGHT TO VOTE. That being said... let me put it to you this way... how can we be a democracy (of any kind) when a right as clear cut as voting and important to any democracy... is not actually codified in a document such as the US Constitution? Clearly you did not read the constitution of the USA. Please refer to the Voting Rights Act of 1965

I already refered indirectly when earlier I said:

dahat wrote: Guess what... they don't. That's right, there is no federal right to vote. Don't believe me? Again... find me that line in the Constitution or one of it's amendments (a common (and yet always unfulfilled) request from me I know). Sure, there are a few that say that you cannot deny someone the 'right' to vote based on sex or race... but it is not clear on what grants that right in the first place. Why? Because it's up to the states to decide (see Tenth Amendment).

More entertaining though, you obviously missed the last section of the Wikipedia article you linked to which is titled No affirmative right to vote which even includes a SCOTUS quote from 2000:

The United States Supreme Court wrote: The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.

SecretSoftware wrote: You see this is why people feel they dont want to reply to your points because your making "much ado about nothing", you want me to waste my valuable time to explain to you elementary stuff that any US citizen would and ought to have known.

You can claim that if you'd like... however the fact that on the rare occasion you actually try to prove me wrong you fail (a common outcome I might point out), it seems to disprove your assertion here.

SecretSoftware wrote: Its like going to Physics class of Level 10, with no physics background, and asking the Professor to explain it all to you in one hour. No one is going to baby sit you, go to the library and learn afew things about the democracy that is the United States of America.

I really need to start a count of how many times you try to prove me wrong, utterly fail, even prove yourself wrong with the very links you provide and then engage in ad-hominem attacks afterwards when you think you've won as it to is a pretty common occurrence.

SecretSoftware wrote: Its no wonder that this happened.

Because YouTube (and broken links at that) are known for their accuracy.

SecretSoftware wrote: Me not replying to your points, is not because I am unable to, its just that I dont have the time to teach you the basics or the history of this country. Go learn and then come debate.

Bull(some word that wont be removed by the word filter), and something you've helped me demonstrate here repeatidly... every time you try to respond and prove me wrong and fail out right (as you did once again with your previous comment).

I've said it before and I'll say it again... I just love letting/helping someone dig themselves into a hole of their own ignorance and creation.

I just showed you that you do not know the laws of the USA. You think you know something but you really don't. That is why I sit here and ROFL at your stupidity, just like I ROFL at  Miss Teen USA 2007 above.

The People in the USA have the RIGHT as written in the constitution, to VOTE. PERIOD.

You cannot dream up your own interpertations of the law, the law as it has been applied allows for people to vote as granted to them in the Constitution of the USA.

Now back to Miss Teen USA 2007,  hahahahaha.... and a hahahaha, and a hahahahaha.

Mwahahahahaha. I just cant help but laugh. Sorry!

dahat,

Thats right, electors are not guaranteed by the Constitution to be elected by a vote of the people.

But explicitly, House of Representatives, members are to be elected by the people:

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."

This was done on purpose , Dahat. Read up on Federalism.

Federalism is as an important concept to US government as is democracy or republicanism.

And this was extended to the Senate with the 17th amendment:

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures."

SecretSoftware wrote:


I just showed you that you do not know the laws of the USA. You think you know something but you really don't. That is why I sit here and ROFL at your stupidity, just like I ROFL at  Miss Teen USA 2007 above.

This would be what you should NOT be doing.  You are confusiong childish behaviour with debate. 

SecretSoftware wrote:

The People in the USA have the RIGHT as written in the constitution, to VOTE. PERIOD.

No they don't.  Seriously.  You are wrong.  Shut up about it.

SecretSoftware wrote:

You cannot dream up your own interpertations of the law, the law as it has been applied allows for people to vote as granted to them in the Constitution of the USA.

Now back to Miss Teen USA 2007,  hahahahaha.... and a hahahaha, and a hahahahaha.

Mwahahahahaha. I just cant help but laugh. Sorry!

Hey.  Smart guy.  Before you get too comfortable in your happy place.  Move your mouse on up the page and try to click on the link you supplied for that "hilarious" movie.

So, ScanIam I just read the link you posted.

Although the Constitution does specify that the people qualified to vote for Congress members are the people qualified to vote for state legislatures. It also specifically says "the people of the state". If the Supreme Court ever ruled on it, they would say a Congressman that wasn't put into office by popular vote was unconstitutionally elected.

However, the constitution does allow limits to the way the popular vote is conducted. And there are amendments that restrict what limits can be placed. (since thought on how this should be done has changed and liberalized over the years)

That page has a lot of very nit picky legalistic interpretations that would be ruled WRONG by the Supreme Court, because law practice takes in account the full wording and full intent of whats written.

A lot of whats written in the constitution is also corroborated and given meaning by "Common law" when judicial proceedings happen. "The right of privacy" for instance, comes from common law interpretation, not the Constitution explicitly.

Before people comment on what the Constitution says and what it doesn't they need to understand how the legal system works.

brian.shapiro wrote:

So, ScanIam I just read the link you posted.

Although the Constitution does specify that the people qualified to vote for Congress members are the people qualified to vote for state legislatures. It also specifically says "the people of the state". If the Supreme Court ever ruled on it, they would say a Congressman that wasn't put into office by popular vote was unconstitutional.

However, the constitution does allow limits to the way the popular vote is conducted.

Right, and I'll admit that the point dahat was making was that it just isn't specifically spelled out in the constition that we have the right to vote.  Actually after I found that page, I found a whole lot of things that aren't in the constitution that I'd guess MOST people would assume are.

The issue, then, becomes:  If it isn't specifically listed, can it be specifically denied?  I'd guess that there would be a revolt if voting was denied wholesale, but if it was done in steps, it could certainly occur.

We had the japanese internment in WWII for example and in florida, they still have issues with allowing ex-cons to vote.  All it takes is to demonize a sub-population, remove their right, lather, rinse, and repeat. 

By no means, do I think this is in store for us, but it is a scenario that could work.

ScanIAm wrote:



brian.shapiro wrote: So, ScanIam I just read the link you posted. Although the Constitution does specify that the people qualified to vote for Congress members are the people qualified to vote for state legislatures. It also specifically says "the people of the state". If the Supreme Court ever ruled on it, they would say a Congressman that wasn't put into office by popular vote was unconstitutional. However, the constitution does allow limits to the way the popular vote is conducted.

Right, and I'll admit that the point dahat was making was that it just isn't specifically spelled out in the constition that we have the right to vote.  Actually after I found that page, I found a whole lot of things that aren't in the constitution that I'd guess MOST people would assume are.

The issue, then, becomes:  If it isn't specifically listed, can it be specifically denied?  I'd guess that there would be a revolt if voting was denied wholesale, but if it was done in steps, it could certainly occur.

We had the japanese internment in WWII for example and in florida, they still have issues with allowing ex-cons to vote.  All it takes is to demonize a sub-population, remove their right, lather, rinse, and repeat. 

By no means, do I think this is in store for us, but it is a scenario that could work.

The constitution doesn't provide universal suffrage without restrictions. It does provide that a vote representative of the people must be taken, implicity, when it says "chosen by the people". And the Supreme court would rule unconstitutional any election that wasnt representative of the people.

The reason the right for women to vote had to be put in , is because earlier men were assumed to be representing their wives legally. --- thus, excluding women was not a Constitutional violation.


edit:
Should also note that at first voting was done by "colleges", where landowners would be the ones voting. This was justified by the idea that landowners legally represented people who used their land. It would also have been logistically hard to get every single person to vote and count everyone's vote at that time in history.

Legal rights and representation are really what has , historically, defined voting rights in the US. In any case the "chosen by the people" will always stand. Its in the Supreme Court's interpretation what does not constitute 'chosen by the people'.

brian.shapiro wrote:



The constitution doesn't provide universal suffrage without restrictions. It does provide that a vote representative of the people must be taken, implicity, when it says "chosen by the people". And the Supreme court would rule unconstitutional any election that wasnt representative of the people.

The reason the right for women to vote had to be put in , is because earlier men were assumed to be representing their wives legally. --- thus, excluding women was not a Constitutional violation.


edit:
Should also note that at first voting was done by "colleges", where landowners would be the ones voting. This was justified by the idea that landowners legally represented people who used their land. It would also have been logistically hard to get every single person to vote and count everyone's vote at that time in history.

Legal rights and representation are really what has , historically, defined voting rights in the US. In any case the "chosen by the people" will always stand. Its in the Supreme Court's interpretation what does not constitute 'chosen by the people'.

Furthermore,  I should note that the best interpretation of this means that the voting rights of certain groups can't be taken away unless there's a legal rationale. Ie, either the person is represented by someone else (husband, master, landowner) ; or , the person does not have the status of being a citizen in the state (non-citizen, illegal alien, fugitive) or something similar (felon : has rights, but compromised rights).


I should also note that a big part of landowners having voting rights at first was that a large part of people who worked the land were indentured, bound legally to the other person by contract, usually because of some large debt. This means the landowner (and the creditor), by contract, was their legal representative.

This changed when the economic system of debtor-creditor changed dramatically --- so didn't require any dramatic changes to law.

I hate politics...

after saying that here's some reading material for everyone:

14th amendment (wiki) and 26th amendment (wiki) clarifies reasons why a US Citizen can not be denied the right to vote (you can be denied for other reasons, hence why criminals can't vote). Did we forget about these amendments that did away with the 3/5th vote for slaves? Made it against the constitution to restrict women from voting? This doesn't say that you have the undeniable right to vote, it just states explicitly conditions that can not be used to restrict a US Citizen from voting.

It's delegated to the state governments to actually hold their elections by ballot (writ) when vacancies occur in the Senate or House.

I think one problem is that Democracy does not have a "concrete definition"

Wikipedia wrote:

There is not a universally accepted definition of "democracy", especially with regard to the elements in a society which are required for it.^[1] Many people use the term "democracy" as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include additional elements such as political pluralism, equality before the law, the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances, due process, civil liberties, human rights, and elements of civil society outside the government. In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a supporting attribute, but in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the dominant philosophy is parliamentary sovereignty (though in practice judicial independence is generally maintained). In other cases, "democracy" is used to mean direct democracy.

The US government is a constitutional republic (sometimes referred to as a representative republic) which is a form of "democracy"

The only country with anything close to a direct democracy (also called pure democracy) is Switzerland, they have a very close system that implements a single majority and double majority voting (both population and states must be in majority for national level matters).
The problem with direct democracy is it's an all vote system, with the general apathy in countries and just how large/populated countries are, it is a very hard system to manage.


Brian, you are starting to understand, but you're not exactually correct. Elections of the President/Vice President are not actually done by the public (surprise). There is a convention of electors that is built by the public vote called the Electoral College. This is a group of people who make the final vote (41 days after the popular vote) on the president. They also make a separate vote on the vice president. Their number is equal to the number of senators and representatives (currently 538, DC has 3 electors). States electoral votes are directly related to the people they can send to this group. Most states exist with an winner take all popular vote. This means that even though a state could be split 46/44/10 (accumulation of all non-partisan parties) the entire electoral votes goes to the party with 46%. However even if a party receive popular vote, they can still lose the electoral college vote for various reasons. Since electors make promises to their parties to vote a specific way, generally the popular vote = electoral vote. Since there is no federal (and only some state) laws that prevent an electorate from changing their vote, there can be "faithless electors" (this doesn't happen often). Read up on the system on Wikipedia: US Electoral College. This consequently is one of the reason third-parties won't succeed in the current system.

Back to the OT: What in the name of Hell (, Michigan) does US laws have to do with UK clarifying that under an issued search warrant that encrypted data on computers is covered under the ISSUED warrant? Besides, if it is an encryption that is reversible, then it is technically not "uncrackable" it just may take too long or be too complex to easily break, and thus not be worth the time and expense to crack it. I fail to see where requiring a suspect in a current investigation to comply with allowing data to be searched is a breach of privacy.

Also, a lock is a great illustration of encryption. A lock will only work when a specific key/code (generally) is used otherwise the pins are improperly arranged. Encryption is much the same except you have to also figure out what type of encryption it is. After that even knowing what type of encryption it is, you still need the right key otherwise you'll decrypt nonsense, this is fundamental to cryptography.

Isshou wrote:

I hate politics...


Brian, you are starting to understand, but you're not exactually correct. Elections of the President/Vice President are not actually done by the public (surprise).

No you got lost in the conversation somewhere and are mistaking me for someone else I was stating that fact, I was stating that Presidents aren't supposed to be elected by the public, because the US has a strong concept of Federalism.

My posts were to demonstrate that the Constitution does provide that the House of Rep members to be "chosen by the people", while some people this thread have denied that, and implied that they could be appointed by the state governments without popular representation.

Also, the language of the Constitution also implies that state legislatures have to be elected by popular vote. When the Constitution details how state legislators have to be chosen by the same process that House of Representative members are chosen.

Thus, the exact opposite of what people are claiming is true. Our Constitution guarantees that Congress is selected by popular approval and consequently that state legislatures are selected by popular approval.

This doesn't mean that the qualification to vote can't be restricted, as it has been in the past. And I explained under which situations and why it has been. (ie women are represented by their husbands, indentured servants are represented by landowners, non-citizens cant vote, etc)

dahat wrote:

Phreaks Wrote...

 America is a democracy, anyone that tries to argue differently clearly doesn't fully understand the terms they use.

Care to cite a counter example then?

How about Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 1, Sections 1 through 4.

How about the Bill of Rights, Due Process,  the Separation of Powers, Equal Protection under the law, Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and the Right to Assembly; to name a few.

Democracy doesn't mean 'Right to Vote for President'.

Article2, Section 1 wrote:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

dahat wrote:

Tell you what... go back and read some of the papers of some of the founding fathers and see what they thought of democracy... they were almost afraid of it and viewed it as little more than mob rule.

LMAO, Please provide the context of this assertion and the evidence to support it.

Here’s a little snippet to think about while you try to put that into context.

Wikipedia wrote:

"Democracy" and "Republic"

In 18th century historical usages, especially when considering the works of the Founding Fathers of the United States, the word "democracy" was associated with radical egalitarianism and was often defined to mean what we today call direct democracy. In the same historical context, the word "republic" was used to refer to what we now call representative democracy.
 
For example, James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, advocates a constitutional republic over a democracy to protect the individual from the majority.

Madison was seeking to distinguish between a direct democracy and a representative democracy, but his choice to do so using the words "democracy" and "republic" had no basis in prior usage of the words.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#.22Democracy.22_and_.22Republic.22
 

Dahat wrote:

Negative.

While the United States has a strong democratic tradition... it is by no means a democracy.

Given the people do not directly vote on issues, we are not a direct democracy.

Given the electors who the people vote are free to vote for whatever they want, regardless of the will of the people (see faithless electors in the case of the electoral college system), we are not a represenative democracy.

I’m not going to argue with you, it’s a simple concept and there’s really no reason for your douchiness.

USA : Constitutional Republic, IDemocracy
Constitutional Republic : Liberal Democracy, IDemocracy
Liberal Democracy :  Representative Democracy, IDemocracy
Representative Democracy : IDemocracy

All implement IDemocracy 

(EDIT: Should I create a Visio diagram?)

dahat wrote:

I'll leave you with one more quick example (and my last with you if you are unwilling/unable to provide counter examples to any of what I’ve discussed here)... Remember... there is NO FEDERAL RIGHT TO VOTE.

1) Read Article 2, Section 1
2) Now  Read Article 1, Sections 1 through 4
3) Please define democracy for me.

dahat wrote:

That being said... let me put it to you this way... how can we be a democracy (of any kind) when a right as clear cut as voting and important to any democracy... is not actually codified in a document such as the US Constitution?

The term ‘Democracy’ doesn’t explicitly guarantee the right to vote for president.

Our Constitution does spell out that the Senete elects the President and that the States elect the senate.

As Noted previously, refer to Article 1, Sections 1 through 4 and Article 2 Section 1; and think about the term democracy.

Before you begin advocating that others ‘read up’ on a particular topic, please ensure you know what you’re talking about first.