[quote=markmax33]
You seem to be questioning the whole point of the constitution. It was to protect our liberties because if you don’t the GOV takes liberties away that you may think shouldn’t be taken away. It was intended to protect the people from the GOV. Yes, people will commit crimes and be brought to justice in a court of law, but the intent was not for the Department of Homeland Security to be taking naked pictures of you at the airport, random stops on the roads for no reasons, etc.[/quote]
Not questioning the point of the constitution at all. Only questioning your assertion that interpretation is easy.
[quote=markmax33]
Yes your hard drive is your personal data, yes the information on the wires to ISP is owned by the ISP, yes your ISP servers are owned by the ISP, yes the illegal information you accessing in Holland is owned by their companies. The US has no jurisdiction over any of that without a warrant and shouldn’t be snooping.[/quote]
My question was whether the security against unreasonable search and seizure extends to your property held by another. If the ISP, or google or yahoo turn over info voluntarily, without a warrant, have your rights been violated?
[quote=markmax33]
The uterus question is odd. The GOV has no jurisdiction over that either. Ron Paul does not support federal jurisdiction over that either. It is a states issue as he has explained numerous times. [/quote]
So it’s your contention that Ron Paul believes the states have the right to invade the privacy of a woman’s uterus, irrespective of the guarantees provided in the 4th amendment? Does that extend to the rest of the 4th amendment? State and local police are not bound by the unreasonable search and siezure clause? Really?
