MN Legislature Introduces Amendment To Protect Electronic Communications 46
Bob the Super Hamste writes: The Minnesota legislature has introduced an amendment to the State Constitution to enshrine the protections against unreasonable search and seizure to electronic communications and data. The amendment appears to have broad support in the State House, but leadership in the State Senate is lukewarm to it. In the Senate, Judiciary Committee Chairman Ron Latz (DFL) had blocked the amendment, stating that he feels it is redundant. Additionally, Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk (DFL) opposes the legislation because it is an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution. If it passed, Minnesota would become only the second state to enact such a change (Missouri did so last year with support from 75% of voters).
Wrong word (Score:2)
The word is "Feds"
Emails Sent (Score:1)
I took the minute out of my day to email both of these guys who are holding this up in my state. Please consider doing the same. There is a very simple quick email form at both links.
Re: (Score:2)
The big question is (Score:4, Interesting)
How does Dayton feel about it?
The big question is (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The big question is (Score:4, Insightful)
Redundancy Is Good For Civil Rights (Score:4, Informative)
He feels it is redundant.
Supposedly the Bill of Rights was controversial in its day because many of the founding fathers thought it would be unnecessary: the population would zealously guard their hard-earned liberty and the various protections of the Constitution (representational government, separation of powers, etc.) would prevent tyranny. In fact, they feared that by enumerating freedoms they would inadvertently limit them, which is why they ultimately included the 9th amendment [wikipedia.org] to say "hey, this isn't an exhaustive list" [though the practical effect of the 9th has been null].
Fortunately, the Bill of Rights was passed despite being "redundant", and the courts have brought it into play several times when lawmakers worked up particularly nasty bills. Unfortunately, the courts have also weasel-worded their way into listing several exceptions to these amendments (especially where 1, 2, and 4 are concerned).
Re:Redundancy Is Good For Civil Rights (Score:5, Informative)
The story is actually very interesting. The Bill of Rights was enacted as a compromise to get the Constitution passed. The Constitution was not our first government -- that was the Articles of Confederation, but the Articles of Confederation basically wasn't working at all because it was a very poor design.
Some highlights: it gave the federal government so little power it couldn't do anything. It couldn't even pass taxes; the states were supposed to voluntarily pitch in. It also required unanimous consent in Congress to pass any law, and Congress was all there was; there was no executive or judicial branch.
So some of the leaders -- the Federalists -- drafted the Constitution to replace it. But there were Anti-Federalists, and they argued the central government would become so powerful it would eventually turn tyrannical. So, the Bill of Rights was added to placate them. We can see now that was a really, really Good Idea(TM).
Re:Redundancy Is Good For Civil Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
We can also see that because it has no teeth -- there is no penalty for violating the constitution -- it wasn't able to do its job, and that is why, today, we have ex post facto laws, direct violations of most of the bill of rights, the inversion of the commerce clause, and judicial usurpation of article 5 powers. Not to mention a collapse of representation into corporate servitude, resulting in a de-facto oligarchy.
So, we... Hey! Was that a Nipple Slip????
Re: (Score:2)
We can also see that because it has no teeth
Then why are you still breathing? Your labor is not valuable enough to justify the seditious words you speak of. Sure, there is substantial encroachment on the framework that is described by the US Constitution, but it'd be a very different world, if it weren't working at all rather than working poorly.
Re: (Score:2)
When was the last time anyone in government went to jail for violating the constitution?
Again, you miss the point. You're still breathing. That means there remains some obstruction to government or whoever is in power doing what they want. I think this is the current process:
1) Government representatives violate the Constitution.
2) Someone gets fed up enough with the behavior to bring it to court.
3) The court rules mostly in the favor of the defendant.
4) The government representatives finally stop doing the activity which has been ruled unconstitutional because at this point, they will g
Re: (Score:2)
This is not because he is protected by the rule of law, but because it is more costly to incarcerate or execute him than it is to let him go on being impotently seditious.
That's never been a problem before. It's not particularly costly to incarcerate or execute people. And being allowed to be "impotently seditious" has greater costs for the government down the road, such as it getting replaced.
Re: (Score:2)
You keep referring to "still breathing", as if state sanctioned murder of citizens for petty criticism is obligatory in the absence of the Constitution. There are plenty of countries without written constitutions where the post above wouldn't get you killed and there are plenty of reasons that have nothing to do with the Constitution to not murder people for speaking their mind.
Is the world really so black and white to you? Can we not complain about the shortcomings of our system of government until we are
Re: (Score:3)
You keep referring to "still breathing", as if state sanctioned murder of citizens for petty criticism is obligatory in the absence of the Constitution.
He's publicly challenging authority. That's pretty open and shut. And dictatorships pretty much need to make examples of those who publicly challenge their rule or they cease to be the ones in charge.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so the world really is that black and white to you. Either the Constitution has teeth and punishes authority when it oversteps its bounds (which it clearly doesn't) or the US is a brutal dictatorship and citizens who challenge authority must be murdered to make an example (which it clearly isn't).
There clearly isn't anything else in play here. Either the Constitution works or the government is murdering you. Open and shut.
(Let alone the obvious existence of other countries that neither have a constituti
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so the world really is that black and white to you.
Yes, because the world is that black and white.
All systems can be abused (Score:4, Insightful)
I see the US Constitution bashed constantly in media, and occasionally here. You seem to hint at the same idea in your last sentence as well, but maybe I'm taking that wrong. The US was the best design in the history of Governments. Many compromises took place to enact it, but the idea was that it would be difficult to change (not impossible). We now have Politicians and Supreme court justices that believe the Constitution is a nuisance, and that is telling. Primarily that the US Constitution is still a thorn in their sides.
If we taught kids the history of the Constitution and all that surrounded it, we would be much better off.
I can dream can't I?
Re: (Score:2)
I intended no sarcasm. I think the Bill of Rights was a very good idea.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, but the implementation has been problematic.
Even though the Constitution makes explicit the powers given to the Federal government, several take the reverse tact of if a protection isn't listed, it doesn't exist. That makes the possible actions by the government infinite and the protections few, and nearly impossible to protect against.
Instead of these piecemeal protections, I'd rather no Bill of Rights, and severe penalties for government overstepping its bounds.
Not disagreeing with several comments here that things have devolved as regards to constitutional rule, but the Bill of Rights explicitly disallows what you contend happened. The tenth amendment reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the people." Therefore, the fault isn't in the Bill of Rights not providing comprehensive protections, the fault lies securely in lack of vigilance by the populo
I'm sorry... (Score:2)
Painting himself into a corner (Score:5, Insightful)
In the Senate, Judiciary Committee Chairman Ron Latz (DFL) had blocked the amendment, stating that he feels it is redundant.
Saying it's redundant implies there are already laws on the books that protect against unreasonable search and seizure of electronic communications -- yet those actions are being taken.
So which is it, Ron? Either this is not redundant, and therefore a good idea in the scheme of checks and balances, or LEOs are getting unlawful access to electronic communications. Either way, there's a problem here that needs to be addressed.
Re: (Score:3)
In the Senate, Judiciary Committee Chairman Ron Latz (DFL) had blocked the amendment, stating that he feels it is redundant.
Saying it's redundant implies there are already laws on the books that protect against unreasonable search and seizure of electronic communications -- yet those actions are being taken.
So which is it, Ron? Either this is not redundant, and therefore a good idea in the scheme of checks and balances, or LEOs are getting unlawful access to electronic communications. Either way, there's a problem here that needs to be addressed.
It's a way of resolving a conflict between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.
Most of us would expect that when a group of people get together and explicitly state that they should be "secure in their papers", that that would mean essentially any private documents and correspondence.
The current Federal approach, however, is to take the letter-of-the-law approach and since electronic documents aren't "paper", they consider them fair game. This not only allows them more power, it makes lawyers ha
Re: (Score:2)
In the Senate, Judiciary Committee Chairman Ron Latz (DFL) had blocked the amendment, stating that he feels it is redundant.
. . .
Thus, Mr. Latz slams the door on the literalists at the expense of appearing redundant.
I would like to agree with Mr. Latz, it should be redundant. The problem is that too many courts, prosecutors, etc. have not considered electronic documents to be "papers" therefore it has already been found to not be redundant.
Re: (Score:2)
And it appears I read his position backwards. Instead of slamming the door, he wants to keep it open.
Regardless of what Latz says one way or another, it should be redundant, but the courts and law enforcement have made it otherwise.
Survey says : X (Score:2)
the summary itself provides damning evidence that this bill is a pointless act.
this might get more press than the Montana hating state rep who wants to ban yoga pants, but not likely
Re: (Score:2)
And that evidence would be?