Will I void my warranty
Cruiser
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
From: Middle Tennessee
No Federal law?
Well looky here:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/98-327.pdf
Try it, see if it don't become a Federal case.
All this **** comes down to being Americans with certain rights to protect us. Right to privacy comes to mind.
Can't have it both ways.
Don't complain about lack of rights when you turn around and infringe on those same rights of others.
You don't want the government or the cops to record your conversations, but you think civilians suddenly have the freedom to do so? Huh?
Well looky here:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/98-327.pdf
Try it, see if it don't become a Federal case.
All this **** comes down to being Americans with certain rights to protect us. Right to privacy comes to mind.
Can't have it both ways.
Don't complain about lack of rights when you turn around and infringe on those same rights of others.
You don't want the government or the cops to record your conversations, but you think civilians suddenly have the freedom to do so? Huh?
Federal Law applies sometimes when the event takes place across state lines - that's when it applies. The assumption that the federal law they use now in that respect is merely that - an assumption that people buy into.
There is no "Right to Privacy". It is not stated anywhere in the Constitution. It is merely a construct from a liberal court. I'm not saying it isn't a desired right and one that we assume - it just doesn't exist as a 'right' within in the founding documents - but the debate over it in the Federalist Papers is fascinating.
And lastly, the Constitution puts limits on what the _Government_ can do - not citizens or employers. It was constructed as a restraint on governmental power. That is why your employer can wire tap you all day long....
Cruiser
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
From: Middle Tennessee
Horse hockey.
And it is this kind of thinking that has us in the situation we are in now. Federal law has no authority within a state. Read your Constitution - especially the 9th and 10th Amendments.
And yes, I always enjoy a good debate as well......
And it is this kind of thinking that has us in the situation we are in now. Federal law has no authority within a state. Read your Constitution - especially the 9th and 10th Amendments.
And yes, I always enjoy a good debate as well......
Banned
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 7,580
Likes: 7
From: The Internet (& Dyer, Indiana)
There is no Federal Law that has authority within a state. Unfortunately we live in a society where too many people believe the US Government has authority within a state.
And even if you were correct,...... even state law requires "consent" from at least one party on the other end of the phone. Some states require all parties.
.
Last edited by Faast Ed; Sep 19, 2010 at 09:41 AM.
Cruiser
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
From: Middle Tennessee
Like the feds trying to tell Arizona that their state law isn't constitutional. The governor should tell the feds to go pound sand. The constitution states that the feds can define what a _citizen_ is. It doesn't reserve the right to border protection to the federal government.
The Federal Government is supposed to do 18 things - that's it. Getting involved in my state affairs isn't one of them unless that item from the state violates one of those 18 things.....
An my state law requires the consent of one party - not one party on the 'other end'.
Last edited by RodeDawg; Sep 19, 2010 at 09:58 AM.
Banned
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 7,580
Likes: 7
From: The Internet (& Dyer, Indiana)
The Federal Government is supposed to do 18 things - that's it. Getting involved in my state affairs isn't one of them unless that item from the state violates one of those 18 things.....
Arizona was a perfect example. They have to live with the immigrants drain on their resources, while the Feds refuse to allow them to enforce immigration laws.
Like the feds trying to tell Arizona that their state law isn't constitutional. The governor should tell the feds to go pound sand.
That's when the lawsuit came and threw the sand back in the Gov's face.
Now they are going after Sheriff Joe.
http://www.defendsheriffjoe.com/Home.html
.
Last edited by Faast Ed; Sep 19, 2010 at 10:04 AM.
Cruiser
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
From: Middle Tennessee
But they do.
Arizona was a perfect example. They have to live with the immigrants drain on their resources, while the Feds refuse to allow them to enforce immigration laws.
The Gov did indeed tell the feds to go pound sand!
That's when the lawsuit came and threw the sand back in the Gov's face.
Now they are going after Sheriff Joe.
http://www.defendsheriffjoe.com/Home.html
.
Arizona was a perfect example. They have to live with the immigrants drain on their resources, while the Feds refuse to allow them to enforce immigration laws.
The Gov did indeed tell the feds to go pound sand!
That's when the lawsuit came and threw the sand back in the Gov's face.
Now they are going after Sheriff Joe.
http://www.defendsheriffjoe.com/Home.html
.
As for going after Sheriff Joe, they've been doing that for years. This is just the latest attempt. And it will fail as well.
Let's just cut to the quick, cut and paste the text from the US Constitution that says that border security is reserved to the US Government and a state can't have its own law (which mirrors the Federal Law BTW) and defend its borders.
Banned
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 7,580
Likes: 7
From: The Internet (& Dyer, Indiana)
An my state law requires the consent of one party - not one party on the 'other end'.
If that were true, I could give myself consent to taking the cash from Walgreen's cash register.
I admit that the law is written ambiguously, but if you add some common sense,....
The law states that he "needs" consent of one party (or all parties in some states). If he needs it, then he don't have it to begin with.
Cruiser
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
From: Middle Tennessee
It wouldn't be called "consent", if the guy with the recorder could consent himself. He's the one who "needs" consent, he can't "give" consent.
If that were true, I could give myself consent to taking the cash from Walgreen's cash register.
I admit that the law is written ambiguously, but if you add some common sense,....
The law states that he "needs" consent of one party (or all parties in some states). If he needs it, then he don't have it to begin with.
If that were true, I could give myself consent to taking the cash from Walgreen's cash register.
I admit that the law is written ambiguously, but if you add some common sense,....
The law states that he "needs" consent of one party (or all parties in some states). If he needs it, then he don't have it to begin with.
And your 'opinion' doesn't match our case law so I'd suggest you let it go.
HD Forum Stories
The Best of Harley-Davidson for Lifelong Riders
7 Surprising Harley-Davidson Products that Are Not Motorcycles
Verdad Gallardo
8 Best Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Ever
Pouria Savadkouei
10 Worst Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Ever
Pouria Savadkouei
Killer Custom's Jail Break Is The Breakout That Refused to Blend In
Verdad Gallardo
Crazy Bunderbike Build Looks Amazing, But Is It Impossible to Ride?
Verdad Gallardo
Harley-Davidson Reveals Super Cool Cafe Racer Concept
Verdad Gallardo
Engraved Rebellion: Inside Bundnerbike's Glam Rock II
Verdad Gallardo
10 Motorcycles You Should Never Buy
Joe Kucinski
