The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

[unofan]

If a recipient of food stamps is spending other money on things like drugs or even cigarettes are they abusing the system?

Assumes facts not in evidence.

[ericredaxe]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Hence the "IF" in my question….

[Handyman]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

If a recipient of food stamps is spending other money on things like drugs or even cigarettes are they abusing the system?

Are the college athletes with thousands of dollars in tattoos getting paid by boosters?

[unofan]

Hence the "IF" in my question….

They're abusing the system as much as a farmer using meth while collecting farming subsidies or a CEO snorting coke while benefiting from corporate welfare.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Could a person make a viable Third Amendment argument against placing government spyware on mobile phones?

That would make a fascinating case...

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Could a person make a viable Third Amendment argument against placing government spyware on mobile phones?

That would make a fascinating case...

Is private spyware on mobile phones breaking and entering?

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Is private spyware on mobile phones breaking and entering?

Of course not; by downloading those apps, you opted in.

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Of course not; by downloading those apps, you opted in.

Depends on what you consented to when the listed the permissions. If they did not disclose that the app could turn on the camera and/or mike without the owner's permission, then you have a case. If they did, and you clicked yes, then shame on you.

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Could a person make a viable Third Amendment argument against placing government spyware on mobile phones?

That would make a fascinating case...

I see where you are going on it being interesting, but I don't think it would work. The Third Amendment is really about seizure of assets (your space).

Seems like a slam dunk Fourth Amendment case, though.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Depends on what you consented to when the listed the permissions. If they did not disclose that the app could turn on the camera and/or mike without the owner's permission, then you have a case. If they did, and you clicked yes, then shame on you.

That's mostly true, but I was being a bit sarcastic.

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Could a person make a viable Third Amendment argument against placing government spyware on mobile phones?

No. You're not quartering anyone.

Now 4th amendment...

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

No. You're not quartering anyone.

Now 4th amendment...

I just got a funny image in my head of soldiers moving into their barracks going, "Awwwww, yeah - executing that 3rd amendment remedy, baby."

Maybe it was only funny if it stayed in my head....

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

No. You're not quartering anyone.

Doesn't that depend upon definition of "soldier"? is a "government spy" considered to be a "soldier" as a representative of the military arm of the government? If so, does a "government spy" necessarily have to be a human being? or is "government spyware" a representative of the military arm of the government and by extension thereby a "soldier"?

Then we get into definition of "house". Is that merely your "brick and mortar" residence? more and more people are carrying their entire lives on their smartphone these days. Might the concept of "house", given present technology, include your smartphone? It certainly "houses" all of your private personal information on its hard drive!

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

No "Spyware" shall, in time of peace, be "quartered" (i.e., "housed") in any "Smartphone" without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Of course, the "easy" response from the government would be to say that the "war on terror" makes this a "time of war" but then at least they would have to pass a law to allow it. Hmm...I suppose they already have a "manner prescribed by law": the FISA courts, eh? so then the entire argument would merely come down to whether this is a "time of war" or not.


Seems to me that a person could make a viable argument, not necessarily a winning one.

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

What about a social worker?

[unofan]

Might the concept of "house", given present technology, include your smartphone?

No.