Tag Archives: rights

Chatrie v United States and Follow-on

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court ruled in Chatrie that police gatherings of Google location histories constituted a search and so must be subject to 4th Amendment strictures. From that, we get parents pushing back against K-12 school districts conducting surveillance of students’ parents, explicitly to gather [a]ccess license plate data and develop pattern of life information.

One of those tracking packages, Thomson Reuters CLEAR, explicitly brags about the software’s ability to collect and provide to school managers residency verification, address validation, license plate verification, all with a view to [u]nderstand who owns and lives at the address provided and other related locations and to develop pattern of life information. The purveyors of this PRC-esque surveillance package also brag that school managers can [e]asily connect information about people, businesses, assets, affiliations, and other vital content.

All of that without the parents’ prior knowledge or permission and without any court sanction of the surveillance.

That such invasions of average Americans’ privacy is being done by school system managers is one more reason they need their reins jerked up short.

Not Contentment or Fulfillment…

Posted on by
Reply

…but security in their property ownership, along with their life and liberty, from which contentment and fulfillment may well result. A letter-writer in Monday’s Letters section of The Wall Street Journal has made that confusion. He wrote, in response to William Galston’s What “Created Equal” Means in America,

One of the inalienable rights with which all Americans are endowed equally by their creator is “the pursuit of happiness.” The operative word is “pursuit.” No person has a right to happiness, but all have the right to seek contentment and fulfillment by striving to live decent and dignified lives.

That’s not the happiness the inalienable right to pursue which that’s acknowledged in our Declaration of Independence, though. John Adams had made that clear beforehand in his Preamble to the Massachusetts constitution:

All men are born free and independent, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

The natural, essential, and unalienable rights of life and liberty and of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property creates the capacity for contentment and fulfillment. The latter does not exist without the formers’ prior existence.

False Dichotomy

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors are at it again. Their lede lays out their (unrecognized) mistake.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on President Trump’s birthright citizenship order. Win—or more likely—lose, he might take note that the success of the US men’s national soccer team in this year’s World Cup is the product in part of America’s historically welcoming immigration system and automatic grant of birthright citizenship to children born in the US.

Correcting the decades of misapprehension of the 14th Amendment and “birthright citizenship” wouldn’t at all make us unwelcoming. All the correction would do (sadly, the editors are likely correct about the likelihood of a favorable ruling) is eliminate the automatic citizenship granted to babies whose parents, by their own intent and action, hold themselves outside our nation’s jurisdiction, being present only under our nation’s power.

The editors closed their piece with this bit and no trace of understanding of its irony:

America’s World Cup men’s team shows again how bringing in foreign talent can be a win for the individuals and for the country.

Legal immigrants. Immigrant citizens or sons of immigrants (because FIFA’s national teams are required to be citizens, not hirelings), who vastly outnumber the one birthright citizen on the team.

Legal immigrants, after the end of birthright citizenship, would remain highly welcome and encouraged to come and join our great nation. The fact that one of the players on our national soccer team is a birthright citizen is irrelevant to any of that.

A Partial Truism

Posted on by
Reply

Willian Galston, in his Tuesday Wall Street Journal op-ed, has it mostly right in his discussion of the meaning of created equal as acknowledged in our Declaration of Independence.

There has always been a gap between America’s promise and its performance. This was true in the revolutionary era, and it remains so today. This doesn’t make the equality proclaimed in the Declaration false or hypocritical. It means that there is a difference between moral truth and empirical reality. Politics at its best works to narrow the gap between them….

That’s completely true, as far as it goes. But it’s necessary for us to take the next, long, critical step. Politics at its best works is far more than just politicians doing politics in the nooks and crannies and in the hallways and on the floor of our government buildings. The critical factor here is us. Us American citizens, We the People, we who are the sovereign of our nation are—or should be—the driving force, the primary political actors, of our government and of our nation.

As a great American philosopher once said, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” But it doesn’t have to be that way.

Naïve Foolishness

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors did it this time. In their editorial regarding FISA, they had this:

The law lets the intelligence community gather information from foreigners overseas and store it in a database. That database can then be searched for communications on matters of national security. If Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon start texting a New Jersey phone number, the New Jersey number is worth a follow-up.
All information in the database is legally gathered, and in 2024 Congress added safeguards against abuse. All queries for American information need prior bureaucratic approval and receive regular audits.

Safeguards. Queries for Americans’ information need bureaucratic approval? How is this any sort of safeguard? Any administration’s bureaucrats can easily approve searches for bureaucrat/administration disapproved Americans. Those bureaucrats are primarily senior FBI officials. To see how well this will work, it’s only necessary to recall AG Eric Holder’s promise to be then-President Barack Obama’s (D) wingman, rather than keeping DoJ independent. Recall further, those FBI senior officials. The FBI works for the AG. The Holders of the world will be back, and folks already are disdaining acting AG Todd Blanche of being no more than President Donald Trump’s (R) man.

Then there’s the FISA court, a by-design secret Star Chamber court where only administration-approved persons get to know the proceedings. That’s bad enough, but even when the Star Chamber was confronted with falsified search warrant requests, it chose not to take any serious corrective, much less punitive, action.

The Star Chamber needs to be abolished. Article III courts are fully capable of issuing sealed warrants that become public only on their being served. That also would apply enforceable safeguards on warrant issuance—they would be issued only by those Article III courts; there would be no recourse to a secret court.