Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I've yet to figure out how it's reasonable for the government to deny us our fourth amendment rights and then lease them back to us for $78, but I suppose I'm equally shocked at how inexpensive it is to violate those rights such that they've managed to make $78 / 5 years somehow profitable?


Ah well technically you have no 4th amendment right within 100 miles of the border or at any so-designated international airport. Details here. [1]

[1] https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone


I believe the courts have decided in error.


On this and many, many other things.

Furthermore, if this is a result of correctly interpreting the constitution…our lawmakers should have, and still should, immediately change the constitution.

We really need an explicit right to privacy. Third party doctrine is ridiculous as it applies to gmail, UPS, FedEx. TSA in general should be plainly unconstitutional. Americans should have reasonable rights even while crossing the border. Americans should still have the same rights vs. the US government when they’re not in America (not okay for FBI to tap my phone line while I’m in Germany, I still have the constitution protecting me as a U.S. citizen). Foreigners inside USA also should have full constitutional protections.

2nd amendment needs massive clarification, I don’t even care what just make it clear in plain language.

If we needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol…Why wasn’t one needed for weed?

How the Fuck did civil asset forfeiture get ruled to be legal? That needs an amendment.

Why don’t citizens get recompense when the government fucks up and takes all their shit when they read the address on the warrant wrong?

Why is the right to a speedy trial still take over a year often? And why are “innocent until proven guilty” people held in jail that whole time?

How is imprisoning people in Guantanamo forever with no trial constitutional?


> 2nd amendment needs massive clarification, I don’t even care what just make it clear in plain language.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is written as plainly as possible though.

Do we as a society really need a constitutional amendment to define what an “infringement” is?


I was in a conversation on HN the other day where I pointed out certain behavior was unconstitutional. The person replied that it was legal.

Sure, it's legal, but due to the interpretation issue you mentioned, I fully believe it's unconstitutional.

here's the link to that conversation if anyone is interested.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34053704#34055711




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: