Archive for the United States Supreme Court Category

The Choice of Brett Kavanaugh For Supreme Court Justice

Posted in Carpenter vs the United States, Clayman v Obama, Declaration of Independence, Inalienable Rights, Justice Brett Kavanuagh, President Trump, Right to Privacy, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ditrict of Columbia Circuit, United States Supreme Court with tags , , , , , , , , , , on July 15, 2018 by authorcarloscardoso

Brett Kavanaugh

The most critical choice being considered now is the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States. The media is spinning this as a right vs left, Democrat vs Republican, Trump supporter or anti-Trump vote. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is about putting a justice on the court who will interpret constitutional issues on the text within the context of intent, by the founding fathers.
Justice Kavanaugh is not a proponent of individual expectation to privacy. He interprets the constitution as written without regard for intent. This narrow view makes the Bill of Rights a restriction on our individual liberties not a minimum guarantee as intended. This is exactly why some of the Founders felt the Bill of Rights was not only unnecessary but dangerous as it could be used to constrain our rights to only these and the narrow definitions contained within.
Some of the founding fathers were insistent that the Bill of Rights was essential because they felt that these minimum guarantees were necessary to protect liberty. Yet now the text is used to limit what those liberties were defined as, not how it was intended. The Founders never would have expected that our reasonable right to privacy would be relinquished when travelling by normal conveyance for personal or business needs yet what rights do we relinquish through force of law when flying on an airplane?
This is a common mode of transportation yet we have given up our rights to privacy in our things and our person for the “convenience” of flying. Now we see the same things with our cell phone records including our calls and our location tracking data held for 5 years by the carrier. This information is given to 3rd parties, the cell phone tower owners to collect. The argument then is that we have voluntarily relinquished the information, it is their property a key distinction, so our expectation of privacy to be tracked is lost.
Justice Kavanaugh has written that the collection of our phone records can be used by the government in the name of national security. He doesn’t view privacy and its importance in the context of not only the Fourth Amendment, he ignores the Ninth and the Tenth. Our right to privacy is inalienable and absolute. The power to surveil our every word even in the supposed sanctity of our homes and means of conveyance, such as our cars is the epitome of tyranny and a means of control.
Our inalienable rights are not defined or confined to the words written in the individual amendments to the constitution. Nor are they defined through the rulings of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is a separate but equal branch of government and no more. The Constitution was written to ensure that the federal government was contained to its enumerated powers and no more. The Supreme Court through the power of judicial review has allowed the government to amass powers never intended and this has gone on for centuries.
Now technology will be introduced where everything in your home will be voice activated and listening all the time. Now the government can listen and watch us in the very sanctity of our homes. This is not liberty as the Founders intended to leave their posterity after fighting for their inalienable rights. Technology’s reach is expanding and it is being used against us by the globalists behind the deep state. We must realize that all powers not given to the federal government were retained by the States and the individual. The constitution through judicial review has weakened the binds of the constitution meant to constrain the federal government. States’ rights and individual rights are being trampled and this must end now.
Justice Kavanaugh on the grounds of constitutional interpretation has a record of being weak on protecting our individual rights to privacy. This is an issue of great importance now and even more in the not so distant future. We need a Supreme Court who will look at the constitution and especially our rights through the perspective of intent and context not strict interpretation of one part of the text. This narrow focus misses the point and endangers us all to tyranny and that was never the intent of the founders. We would do well to demand that our liberties be defended not undermined. In the case of our right to privacy. Brett Kavanaugh doesn’t seem to be in the best interests of the American people. I urge the Senate to quickly reject Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination and find a more suitable candidate.

The Supreme Court Decision on Cell Phone Tracking

Posted in Carpenter vs the United States, FISA courts, Inalienable Rights, Liberty, Right to Privacy, United States Supreme Court with tags , , , , , on June 30, 2018 by authorcarloscardoso

cell phone tower

The recent decision in Carpenter vs the United States by a 5-4 margin was a slim victory for privacy and liberty and by more than just the vote. The majority opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts was grounded in common sense but very limited in scope. He wrote that cell phones were virtually an indispensable way of life and some people are required by their occupation to carry them 24/7 and he’s right. He also noted that 5 years of historical data held by a third party couldn’t be gathered without a warrant because it had to meet the expectation of probable cause needed to search a person’s movement over that length of time without infringing on our reasonable expectation to privacy.
There were three dissenting opinions written in response with Justice Gorsuch writing his own opinion alone without concurrence. This is even more interesting in that Gorsuch wrote that had Carpenter argued that the cell-site location information records were his property he would have concurred with the majority. This simple distinction was pivotal in the decision-making process of all nine Supreme Court Justices. The key word here was property in the dissents written by Justice Kennedy with Justices Thomas and Alito as well as the other written by Justice Alito with Justice Thomas all hinged on the concept of ownership of the cell-site location information the expectation to privacy in the dissenting opinions were lost due to the issue that ownership of those records were held by the carriers of which AT&T was the largest.
Americans have by the nature of the internet and wi-fi essentially given away our reasonable right to privacy in order to avail ourselves of the convenience these innovations have brought to the world. This is something that we as consumers must rally around. We must demand that any information shared with a provider of any service such as these we consent only to being used to our benefit if we choose but any tracking of our movements is an infringement on our right to privacy and our thoughts and conversations are by right intellectual property and should be protected as such.
Therefore, we as Americans must demand that our use of modern conveniences and as stated before in some cases not always by choice cannot and will not be used to track anyone without their consent or without a warrant in a court of law where both sides have an advocate. This would nullify the FISA courts which are unconstitutional since it is ex parte, there is a prosecutor without a defense lawyer or even an impartial advocate. It is a one-sided presentation which has been shown can be manipulated through the willful avoiding of disculpatory evidence by the prosecutor.
The American people must insist that this tracking of our movements is by its very nature our individual property. Law enforcement agencies do not have the right to track any citizen for any reason without a warrant which was the focus of this case. Therefore this decision pointed out a fatal flaw for anyone with a cell phone, the wireless and wi-fi providers track our every movement with a date and time stamp and save it for 5 years. The time is unreasonably long and records of our movement are by nature our reasonable expectation of individual privacy and rightful property.
We need to have privacy agreements for cell phone, tablets, computer, websites, apps and wi-fi companies to clearly state that the records of our movements remain our individual property as we consent to the use of their cell towers to use their products and services. The time of record retention is arbitrary and too long. I believe that there is no reason for those records to be maintained in the manner that they are for any length of time. The mere carrying of some devices crucial to Americans does not mean I or you willfully surrender our rights to the expectation of privacy and allow our movements to be monitored and owned by anyone but the individual.
This decision did not place any limitation on government agencies nor does it involve them in the solution. I don’t seek government legislation, regulation or adjudication to solve this dilemma. We the American people who pay for our internet, cell phones and other electronic devices must demand from our government and the providers that our individual rights are not for sale and non-negotiable. The tracking, monitoring and all other intrusions on our inalienable right to privacy are intolerable and must end now. This case shows how tenuous our liberties are to a government that we clearly currently don’t own.

Here is the link to the decision of Carpenter vs the United States with the majority and dissenting opinions.

Click to access 16-402_h315.pdf