Fourth Amendment: Unreasonable Search and Seizure

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://news.yahoo.com/fourth-amendment-unreasonable-search-seizure-100212533.html Fourth Amendment: Unreasonable Search and Seizure As part of the National Constitution Center’s 27 Amendments (In 27 Days) project, each day we will look at a constitutional amendment. Through partnerships with leading scholars and universities, government agencies, media outlets, and more, the National Constitution Center will profile one amendment each day throughout the month of February.


Photo via Bruce Bortin/Flickr

Photo via Bruce Bortin/Flickr

Today, we look at an amendment that is seemingly in the news daily: the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Full Text of the Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Synopsis:

Applying to arrests and to searches of persons, homes, and other private places, this amendment requires a warrant, thereby placing a neutral magistrate between the police and the citizen. Source: U.S. Senate

Explanation:

This amendment protects the people’s right to be secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” by the government. The Framers of the Constitution were especially concerned about “general warrants” which authorized broad searches of innocent citizens private papers without “particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.”

Today, an unreasonable search or seizure can involve a clear violation of private property rights, like the police entering someone’s home without a warrant supported by probable cause of wrongdoing, or can be subtler, like a police officer using a thermal imaging device to reveal excessive amounts of heat being generated inside a house.

Resources:

1. The Library of Congress Constitution Annotated. Contains a detailed history of the amendment, along with past and recent court cases.

2. Cornell Legal Information Institute. Includes information from Wex, a free legal dictionary and encyclopedia sponsored and hosted by the Legal Information Institute at the Cornell Law School. Wex entries are collaboratively created and edited by legal experts.

3. U.S. Courts website. This resource allows you to understand what Supreme Court decisions clarify reasonable search and seizure, apply the precedents, and see examples Presented for those that fail to see how our Federal government and Obama are on a runaway train and attempting to disarm, illegally search citizens and take away our basic rights and freedoms. --Tyr

[fj1200]

Examples?

[jimnyc]

Examples?

I would think the NSA spying on citizens alone would technically be an unreasonable search and seizure. It's kind of a search, invasion of privacy, no warrants involved. And of course the buck stops at the CiC's desk. I can see it as debatable of course - but imagine what you would be charged with if YOU spied on a politician, for example, and were caught. What applies to us should apply to them.

[fj1200]

I'm sure that there are plenty of examples but one can't present something without attempting to prove their posit. ;)

[tailfins]

I'm sure that there are plenty of examples but one can't present something without attempting to prove their posit. ;)

Sure they can; the OP just did. Now shut up and go do your assigned homework which is for YOU to find those examples. Tedious work gets farmed out to the little people; you should know that by now, so get busy!

[jafar00]

Examples?

NSA, TSA. I love your 3 letter acronyms. Much less typing :)

[logroller]

Sure they can; the OP just did. Now shut up and go do your assigned homework which is for YOU to find those examples. Tedious work gets farmed out to the little people; you should know that by now, so get busy!
How about examples that disprove it? For example, digital info isn't on paper and often isn't kept in one's home nor on their person. Ergo, the fourth amendment doesn't apply. Send a letter by mail: covered; send an email: not covered.

[aboutime]

NSA, TSA. I love your 3 letter acronyms. Much less typing :)



Yeah jafar. We love the 3 letter acronyms that also apply to you, like "ASS".

[jimnyc]

How about examples that disprove it? For example, digital info isn't on paper and often isn't kept in one's home nor on their person. Ergo, the fourth amendment doesn't apply. Send a letter by mail: covered; send an email: not covered.

What about the stored communications act, which I believe shows that a warrant would be required:

With respect to the government’s ability to compel disclosure, the most significant distinction made by the SCA is between communications held in electronic communications services, which require a search warrant and probable cause, and those in remote computing services, which require only a subpoena or court order, with prior notice. This lower level of protection is essentially the same as would be provided by the Fourth Amendment—or potentially less, since notice can be delayed indefinitely in 90-day increments. Orin Kerr argues that, "the SCA was passed to bolster the weak Fourth Amendment privacy protections that applied to the Internet. Incorporating those weak Fourth Amendment principles into statutory law makes little sense."[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored_Communications_Act#cite_note-Kerr2-2) In Warshak v U.S. (2007)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored_Communications_Act#cite_note-Warshak2007-7) this point of view found fleeting support from a panel of the Sixth Circuit, which ruled that a reasonable expectation of privacy extends to emails that would otherwise fall under the SCA’s lower level of protection: "Where the third party is not expected to access the e-mails in the normal course of business, however, the party maintains a reasonable expectation of privacy, and subpoenaing the entity with mere custody over the documents is insufficient to trump the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement." Subsequently, the Sixth Circuit en banc vacated the panel's ruling and remanded for dismissal of the constitutional claim, reasoning that, because the Court had "no idea whether the government will conduct an ex parte search of Warshak’s e-mail account in the future and plenty of reason to doubt that it will," the matter was not ripe for adjudication.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored_Communications_Act#cite_note-Warshak2008-8) Zerwillinger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Zwillinger) and Sommer[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored_Communications_Act#cite_note-9) observed that this decision erected a barrier to "prospective" challenges by individuals with reason to believe they will be targets of surveillance. While Warshak's civil case ended without a resolution to this issue, his criminal case provided another opportunity. In United States v. Warshak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Warshak) (2010)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored_Communications_Act#cite_note-Warshak2010-10) the Sixth Circuit found that email users have a Fourth Amendment-protected reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of their email accounts and that "to the extent that the SCA purports to permit the government to obtain such emails warrantlessly, the SCA is unconstitutional."[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored_Communications_Act#cite_note-Warshak2010-10)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored_Communications_Act#cite_note-11)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored_Communications_Act

[Voted4Reagan]

NSA, TSA. I love your 3 letter acronyms. Much less typing :)

Better than your 3-letter acronyms

PLO... PLA

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Examples? I post-- water is wet. You reply--Examples. As if you haven't a clue what our government is doing. I see many examples have been given by others in their replies so I will say read their replies. No need for me to repeat them. They didn't list them all even. -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Sure they can; the OP just did. Now shut up and go do your assigned homework which is for YOU to find those examples. Tedious work gets farmed out to the little people; you should know that by now, so get busy! :laugh2:

[logroller]

What about the stored communications act, which I believe shows that a warrant would be required:

With respect to the government’s ability to compel disclosure, the most significant distinction made by the SCA is between communications held in electronic communications services, which require a search warrant and probable cause, and those in remote computing services, which require only a subpoena or court order, with prior notice. This lower level of protection is essentially the same as would be provided by the Fourth Amendment—or potentially less, since notice can be delayed indefinitely in 90-day increments. Orin Kerr argues that, "the SCA was passed to bolster the weak Fourth Amendment privacy protections that applied to the Internet. Incorporating those weak Fourth Amendment principles into statutory law makes little sense."[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored_Communications_Act#cite_note-Kerr2-2) In Warshak v U.S. (2007)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored_Communications_Act#cite_note-Warshak2007-7) this point of view found fleeting support from a panel of the Sixth Circuit, which ruled that a reasonable expectation of privacy extends to emails that would otherwise fall under the SCA’s lower level of protection: "Where the third party is not expected to access the e-mails in the normal course of business, however, the party maintains a reasonable expectation of privacy, and subpoenaing the entity with mere custody over the documents is insufficient to trump the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement." Subsequently, the Sixth Circuit en banc vacated the panel's ruling and remanded for dismissal of the constitutional claim, reasoning that, because the Court had "no idea whether the government will conduct an ex parte search of Warshak’s e-mail account in the future and plenty of reason to doubt that it will," the matter was not ripe for adjudication.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored_Communications_Act#cite_note-Warshak2008-8) Zerwillinger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Zwillinger) and Sommer[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored_Communications_Act#cite_note-9) observed that this decision erected a barrier to "prospective" challenges by individuals with reason to believe they will be targets of surveillance. While Warshak's civil case ended without a resolution to this issue, his criminal case provided another opportunity. In United States v. Warshak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Warshak) (2010)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored_Communications_Act#cite_note-Warshak2010-10) the Sixth Circuit found that email users have a Fourth Amendment-protected reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of their email accounts and that "to the extent that the SCA purports to permit the government to obtain such emails warrantlessly, the SCA is unconstitutional."[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored_Communications_Act#cite_note-Warshak2010-10)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored_Communications_Act#cite_note-11)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored_Communications_Act
Good job on the homework Jim. According to tailfins, you're one of the little people for positing evidence. Tyr and the like are above such tedious tasks.

[logroller]

I post-- water is wet. You reply--Examples. As if you haven't a clue what our government is doing. I see many examples have been given by others in their replies so I will say read their replies. No need for me to repeat them. They didn't list them all even. -Tyr
I've seen one posted thus far; hardly a 'runaway train'. Clearly you have more a liking to rhetoric and evasion than argument.

[jafar00]

Better than your 3-letter acronyms

PLO... PLA

I think you are confusing me for someone else.

We have have ASIO.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Good job on the homework Jim. According to tailfins, you're one of the little people for positing evidence. Tyr and the like are above such tedious tasks. Sure I am above such mundane little chores. :laugh: How about you issue an official administrative decree here that nobody can dare answer with evidence I could use, they must wait until I return, read the reply and answer first. That way , I get a very special status here. ;) By the way I can point out many thread authors that post the OP AND THEN EITHER NEVER ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR ELSE IGNORE MOST QUESTIONS AND ANSWER JUST THE ONES THEY CHOSE TO. WITH ME BEING A "SPECIAL CASE" MAYBE I DESERVE OTTHER SPECIAL PERKS HERE. YOU KNOW GIVE ME A DEPUTY MODSHIP SO AS TO BE ABLE TO SHAKE THE RAMBLE ROUSERS HERE, :laugh: :rolleyes: :laugh: --Tyr

[tailfins]

Good job on the homework Jim. According to tailfins, you're one of the little people for positing evidence. Tyr and the like are above such tedious tasks.

It's refreshing when people know their place. Nice job logroller. Did you get a mirror finish on my shoes?

[fj1200]

Sure they can; the OP just did. Now shut up and go do your assigned homework which is for YOU to find those examples. Tedious work gets farmed out to the little people; you should know that by now, so get busy!

Hold your breath while I do some work on that. ;)


NSA, TSA. I love your 3 letter acronyms. Much less typing :)

TSA? Arguably not unconstitutional; a bad idea with worse execution undoubtedly. NSA? We've got a war to win I tell ya'. WAR!!!


I post-- water is wet. You reply--Examples. As if you haven't a clue what our government is doing. I see many examples have been given by others in their replies so I will say read their replies. No need for me to repeat them. They didn't list them all even. -Tyr

No you didn't, you posted that water retains the ability to make something wet not that it has in fact saturated any particular items. Nice cop out though. :slap:

[jimnyc]

Good job on the homework Jim. According to tailfins, you're one of the little people for positing evidence. Tyr and the like are above such tedious tasks.

I didn't even intend on any type of rebuttal or debate. I really only looked for my own curiosity, as I think it sucks that so many other things would get 4th protection, but one of the most private things I engage in, email, would be left for these fuckers to go through whenever they please. But lets face it, although this SCA does seem to give email owners some protection, we all know that they aren't gonna stop anyway. I suppose if they ever found anything incriminating that they just wouldn't be able to use it in a court of law (at least until they lie, cheat and steal and get themselves a back dated warrant!)


It's refreshing when people know their place. Nice job logroller. Did you get a mirror finish on my shoes?

Are you implying that you are a slave owner? And that Log is one of your slaves? And that he must shine your shoes upon being ordered to do so?

That's fucked up, Log, you gonna let him get away with this? :popcorn:

[revelarts]

excellent post Jim.

How about examples that disprove it? For example, digital info isn't on paper and often isn't kept in one's home nor on their person. Ergo, the fourth amendment doesn't apply. Send a letter by mail: covered; send an email: not covered.


fourth amendment "Papers"? log really? My daughter said i told her to go to bed but not to go to sleep, not to long ago too.
Why, in any honest argument, would you not consider e-mail as private "papers and effects"

If i print it out is now a "paper" log? Isn't it an E-PAPER an E-DOCUMENT?
why in God's earth would you give the gov't the world by playing with the term "papers".
why would you narrowly define the word to a 1776 meaning, there but then broadly give the feds the beny of the broadest possibly powers over modern communications and totally ignore the 9th and 10th amendments.
it's dishonest and bias to the extreme.

Here Part of the problem Log, It seems you and FJ always want to read the constitution BASS AKWARD.
You seems to always ASSUME the gov't has authority UNLESS it's specifically denied it.
When it's just the opposite.
the Gov't Does not have authority unless it's expressly given it.
so the Assumption for any new technology should Not be that the gov't can get at it because it's not in the Constitution. But that if the gov't want's to have access to it it will need to create a amendment or law in line with it's constitutional powers that ALLOW it to access specific private communications from a citizen.

the founders made it clear that all powers not expressly granted to the feds remain with the people. It's part of the constitution do you obey it or not. or ignore parts that make it comfortable to back gov't's targeted tyrannies?

It's so tiring to have make this point, over and over. if the pendulum is to swing back, then that's the foundation that it has to rest on.
the Federal Gov't has NO authority but what's granted it by the people in the Constitution, and that NARROWLY defined not Broadly so.

[Jeff]

Sure I am above such mundane little chores. :laugh: How about you issue an official administrative decree here that nobody can dare answer with evidence I could use, they must wait until I return, read the reply and answer first. That way , I get a very special status here. ;) By the way I can point out many thread authors that post the OP AND THEN EITHER NEVER ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR ELSE IGNORE MOST QUESTIONS AND ANSWER JUST THE ONES THEY CHOSE TO. WITH ME BEING A "SPECIAL CASE" MAYBE I DESERVE OTTHER SPECIAL PERKS HERE. YOU KNOW GIVE ME A DEPUTY MODSHIP SO AS TO BE ABLE TO SHAKE THE RAMBLE ROUSERS HERE, :laugh: :rolleyes: :laugh: --Tyr

Tyr for president !!








Are you implying that you are a slave owner? And that Log is one of your slaves? And that he must shine your shoes upon being ordered to do so?

That's too cool I want a slave , a liberal one as well :laugh:



That's fucked up, Log, you gonna let him get away with this? :popcorn:

Waiting patiently :coffee:

[fj1200]

... It seems you and FJ ...

:eek: What did I do?!?

[jimnyc]

:eek: What did I do?!?

Woke up and breathed, damn liberal! :lol: :poke:

[revelarts]

:eek: What did I do?!?

After all of the abuses of the gov't you still ask for examples.

the NSA is recording Every e-mail. they are tracking movement with our phones, illegally accessing our bank accounts and credit card transactions.
and recording EVERY phone conversation -yes the content-!

All documented on the board in various post over the years
and you have to ask
'well weally what did they do woooong mmm? did dey weally bwreak the 4th amendment? weally?'
are you serious FJ?! c'mon man.
It's a question that assumes the gov't has done no wrong in the face of a UNIVERSE of evidence.

[fj1200]

After all of the abuses of the gov't you still ask for examples.

the NSA is recording Every e-mail. they are tracking movement with our phones, illegally accessing our bank accounts and credit card transactions.
and recording EVERY phone conversation -yes the content-!

All documented on the board in various post over the years
and you have to ask
'well weally what did they do woooong mmm? did dey weally bwreak the 4th amendment? weally?'
are you serious FJ?! c'mon man.
It's a question that assumes the gov't has done no wrong in the face of a UNIVERSE of evidence.

All I can do is suggest you reread the OP. :)

[revelarts]

Examples?

I'm sure that there are plenty of examples but one can't present something without attempting to prove their posit. ;)


TSA? Arguably not unconstitutional; a bad idea with worse execution undoubtedly. NSA? We've got a war to win I tell ya'. WAR!!!
No you didn't, you posted that water retains the ability to make something wet not that it has in fact saturated any particular items. Nice cop out though. :slap:

reread done.

you ask for examples, in the face of Mountains of abuse. you say Tyr is just assuming water is wet in this case of abuses on the 4th amendment. You defend the TSA and backhandly the NSA. what am i missing?

[fj1200]

reread done.

you ask for examples, in the face of Mountains of abuse. you say Tyr is just assuming water is wet in this case of abuses on the 4th amendment. You defend the TSA and backhandly the NSA. what am i missing?

The NSA comment was satire. You call that defending the TSA??? Suggesting it's not unconstitutional is a completely different standard. I don't dispute that the Fourth has been suffering for quite some time. Finally, I think you missed the relevant parts of the OP.


Presented for those that fail to see how our Federal government and Obama are on a runaway train and attempting to disarm, illegally search citizens and take away our basic rights and freedoms. --Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

No you didn't, you posted that water retains the ability to make something wet not that it has in fact saturated any particular items. Nice cop out though. :slap: I am pretty sure water is wet before you stick your hand in it. Just as I am sure sand is not a good thing to be sticking your head in. ;) Some little things that we "lesser beings" just know.. :laugh:--Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The NSA comment was satire. You call that defending the TSA??? Suggesting it's not unconstitutional is a completely different standard. I don't dispute that the Fourth has been suffering for quite some time. Finally, I think you missed the relevant parts of the OP. Acts by the government are either Constitutional or they are not. If you do not dispute the Fourth has been suffering then you have just admitted the government has engaged in Unconstitutional acts against it by either direct attacks upon it or a failure to defend the Fourth.. Simple logical reasoning ..... Tyr

[fj1200]

I am pretty sure water is wet before you stick your hand in it. Just as I am sure sand is not a good thing to be sticking your head in. ;) Some little things that we "lesser beings" just know.. :laugh:--Tyr

Yes, water is wet but not everything is wet. Just as not everything government does is unconstitutional.


Acts by the government are either Constitutional or they are not. If you do not dispute the Fourth has been suffering then you have just admitted the government has engaged in Unconstitutional acts against it by either direct attacks upon it or a failure to defend the Fourth.. Simple logical reasoning ..... Tyr

I didn't say I disputed it, I requested examples based on your comment. An as yet unfilled request as it were.

Just trying to be a "higher being." ;)

[logroller]

excellent post Jim.






fourth amendment "Papers"? log really? My daughter said i told her to go to bed but not to go to sleep, not to long ago too.
Why, in any honest argument, would you not consider e-mail as private "papers and effects"


If i print it out is now a "paper" log? Isn't it an E-PAPER an E-DOCUMENT?
why in God's earth would you give the gov't the world by playing with the term "papers".
why would you narrowly define the word to a 1776 meaning, there but then broadly give the feds the beny of the broadest possibly powers over modern communications and totally ignore the 9th and 10th amendments.
it's dishonest and bias to the extreme.
It was mostly satirical rev-- I agree with the expansion of the fourth to include electronic information, but it floften do I see
Here Part of the problem Log, It seems you and FJ always want to read the constitution BASS AKWARD.
You seems to always ASSUME the gov't has authority UNLESS it's specifically denied it.
When it's just the opposite.
the Gov't Does not have authority unless it's expressly given it.
so the Assumption for any new technology should Not be that the gov't can get at it because it's not in the Constitution. But that if the gov't want's to have access to it it will need to create a amendment or law in line with it's constitutional powers that ALLOW it to access specific private communications from a citizen.


the founders made it clear that all powers not expressly granted to the feds remain with the people. It's part of the constitution do you obey it or not. or ignore parts that make it comfortable to back gov't's targeted tyrannies?


It's so tiring to have make this point, over and over. if the pendulum is to swing back, then that's the foundation that it has to rest on.
the Federal Gov't has NO authority but what's granted it by the people in the Constitution, and that NARROWLY defined not Broadly so.
Biased and dishonest, eh? I resent that. My previous post wasn't a sincere attempt at argument-- mostly satirical. Personally I agree with the Warshak ruling, the two-pronged approach to privacy and the expansion of Amendment 4 to include the written word regardless of medium; but its a debate site rev, a predominantly conservative one at that, so at times I argue in spite of my personal beliefs because rare is a position worth holding that cannot endure scrutiny. Pretty sure that's not my being biased.


What I disagree with is the runaway-train-Obama blame-game to which some in here engage. I believe its detrimental to the spirit of debate, born of accepting that there is a much needed balance in society that can only be negotiated through mutual respect for discourse. As opposed to strawman, ad hominem and hyperbolic arguments. You wanna talk dishonesty; surely you can find better examples.


if you want to say its dishonest to argue against one's own position on a topic, fine; but then you can't honestly say that you're here to debate but, rather, just to share your opinions...and, Billions of Facebook 'like[s]' might be some indication of a more prolific forum for such.


To illustrate my point: how about you debate me on abortion and you take the pro-choice side?

[revelarts]

Biased and dishonest, eh? I resent that. My previous post wasn't a sincere attempt at argument-- mostly satirical. Personally I agree with the Warshak ruling, the two-pronged approach to privacy and the expansion of Amendment 4 to include the written word regardless of medium; but its a debate site rev, a predominantly conservative one at that, so at times I argue in spite of my personal beliefs because rare is a position worth holding that cannot endure scrutiny. Pretty sure that's not my being biased.


What I disagree with is the runaway-train-Obama blame-game to which some in here engage. I believe its detrimental to the spirit of debate, born of accepting that there is a much needed balance in society that can only be negotiated through mutual respect for discourse. As opposed to strawman, ad hominem and hyperbolic arguments. You wanna talk dishonesty; surely you can find better examples.


if you want to say its dishonest to argue against one's own position on a topic, fine; but then you can't honestly say that you're here to debate but, rather, just to share your opinions...and, Billions of Facebook 'like[s]' might be some indication of a more prolific forum for such.


To illustrate my point: how about you debate me on abortion and you take the pro-choice side?

FJ i recognize that part of your post was satirical on the "war" bit.
Log I did not recognize your comments as such. My misunderstanding.
However if you note in my response I say that the argument is dishonest not that you personally are dishonest. the "Paper" argument is IMO a thin and sleazy reading of the amendment and as i said tries to promoted strict adherence to that area while totally ignoring the 9th and 10th amendments.
the argument is poor and dishonest, imo.
I didn't mean to give any personal offense log.

As far as you posting it for the sake of argument , OK i missed that. It just got me riled up.
Your point concerning it not JUST being about Obama. I 'm in complete agreement with you on.
It started in earnest with GW BUSH. He ripped the Constitution more than any president in my lifetime, Obama is just following in his footsteps trying to out do him.
Laying all of the unconstitutional issues at Obama's and the democrats feet is Wrong.
I guess where we differ is how to address it. you seemed to want to want to satirically justify Obama abuses, I would rather point out that Obama is not the 1st one to do it.
Some here have been less than clear -not honest with the facts- on that score.

And of course it's a well tread practice to engage in debate by playing devil's advocate.
I again i was not clear that you were in that mode and again i was attacking your argument.
I have to say however that if you play devil's advocate don't be shock by a harsh attack.

As far as just debating for debating sake. well sure that's cool to. it doesn't happen often (ever?) here. usually we debate from our own positions.

Concerning me debating you from a pro-choice position, SHEESSHH!
I don't think i could bring myself to do it.... except satirically, using dishonest arguments.

[fj1200]

What I disagree with is the runaway-train-Obama blame-game to which some in here engage. I believe its detrimental to the spirit of debate...

Debate in name only sadly. :( I did a quick search though and found that echochamber.com has indeed been taken.


To illustrate my point: how about you debate me on abortion and you take the pro-choice side?

Property rights.

[revelarts]

http://media.cleveland.com/darcy/photo/12897593-standard.jpg
.
.
.
http://media.cagle.com/39/2006/05/11/26825_600.jpg

.
.
.
http://farm1.staticflickr.com/47/145656170_d673afd41c.jpg
.
.
.

http://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a544/jackass345/action_zps1597c968.jpg