No, you don't get it. Getting that law in place is exactly what they want because it avoids the Constitutional challenge. Obama and company must sense that there is a lot of opposition to the spying, so this is merely a delay tactic awaiting another WTC bombing or equivalent to change the law back.
The advocates of freedom need to reject this tactic and push this issue to the Supreme court where it belongs. It is not an Executive or Legislative branch issue it is a Constitutional issue and it needs to be stopped on Constitutional grounds not as a matter of legislative action.
> The advocates of freedom need to reject this tactic and push this issue to the Supreme court where it belongs.
You see what's going on, but reason a bit further. The Supreme Court is part of the same government that's in the process of establishing a full police state / tyranny. Do you think they're not part of the problem?
Can a police state's Supreme Court be independent, objective, and intent on preserving freedom? -I wouldn't bet on it.
This is the system we have and it needs to run its proper course. If the Supreme court won't uphold our rights then obviously we have a serious problem. This has not happened yet. The other alternative is if the Supreme court rules spying is unconstitutional but then they are just ignored by the Executive branch and they do it anyway. We'll have to cross these bridges when we get to them but for now there is still constitutionally protected rights and limited government.
> Get out while you can?
There really is nowhere to go. We have to fight for America.
> The other alternative is if the Supreme court rules spying is unconstitutional but then they are just ignored by the Executive branch
Is there any doubt that mass surveillance is "unconstitutional"? Do you think the people organizing the surveillance (ie. establishing the police state) give a fuck?
> for now there is still constitutionally protected rights and limited government
Constitutionally protected rights, such as Bradley Manning's habeas corpus, perhaps?
Limited government? -Oh please. The takeaway here is that strangely enough, a piece of parchment written 200+ years ago cannot magically prevent tyranny in 2014.
No, you don't get it. Getting that law in place is exactly what they want because it avoids the Constitutional challenge. Obama and company must sense that there is a lot of opposition to the spying, so this is merely a delay tactic awaiting another WTC bombing or equivalent to change the law back.
The advocates of freedom need to reject this tactic and push this issue to the Supreme court where it belongs. It is not an Executive or Legislative branch issue it is a Constitutional issue and it needs to be stopped on Constitutional grounds not as a matter of legislative action.