Where does any of that say that a search without a warrant is not reasonable?
The Fourth Amendment does say that (paraphrasing) people have a right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, and that that right shall not be infringed upon; it also defines the conditions that must exist for a warrant to be issued.
But it does not seem to say that a warrant must be issued in order for the search to be reasonable. It probably should say that, and the drafters probably meant something close to that (with wiggle room to prevent excluding e.g. things discovered in the course of perfectly ordinary, non-investigatory activity), but it does not seem to actually explicitly say that.
If you can see how it does say that, please do share. I'd very much like to understand how it does, because I'd very much like to be wrong about the conclusion that it does not, but so far nothing has convinced me that I am.
Re: Re: So...what's the legal basis behind asset forfeiture?
The 4th clearly states that the ONLY REASONABLE way to search or seize a citizen or their property is by obtaining a warrant.
Where does it say that?
I've looked several times, and devoted considerable attention to attempting to parse it in a way which squeezes this statement out of it, and I just don't see that.
The clause about unreasonable search and seizure and the clause about warrants appear to be structurally distinct and, aside from their juxtaposition, unrelated. The authors of the amendment almost certainly meant for them to be related and interlinked, but they don't seem to have stated that intention explicitly in the text.
There is no left wing in national (or even, for the most part, state-level) office in the USA, by historical standards of what left vs. right means. It's all just different degrees of right-wing.
Bernie Sanders' campaign positions were actually mildly left-wing - but not nearly as far as the positions of many people I know, including myself. (As assessed by the standards of The Political Compass, at any rate.)
Does any individual have the right to demand your money on the threat of physical harm or confinement? No of course not.
No, but people do have the right to agree to contribute their money towards the accomplishment of shared goals.
On an individual level, that's done by talking it out among one another and making individual offers and acceptances.
On a larger scale, that's no longer practical. What we do instead is designate people to do the meeting, talking, offering, and accepting on our collective behalf. The act of designating those people is called an "election".
By electing people who decide to do things, and failing to recall those people or otherwise kick them out after they so decide, we as society have agreed to contribute our resources - in the form of money - to doing those things.
All the IRS does, in theory, is handle the collection of those resources for that purpose.
If individual members of society don't want to accede to that collective agreement, the only option society leaves them is to leave, and go live elsewhere. (Unfortunately, there is no longer much of anywhere left to go where no such agreement is in force - and the few possible candidates tend to be places where other factors make life relatively horrible anyway.)
The trouble with this is that the existing practices have been established under court rulings made in light of the Constitution and laws as they stand.
In other words, the courts involved have concluded that the Constitution does not prohibit the activities being undertaken which this bill would seek to prohibit.
You would need to somehow clarify to the courts that the language in the Constitution which they have thought does not prohibit this does, in the mind of Congress, prohibit this.
6) The Congress of the US can make no law abridging any clause in this act, whether preceding, including or following this clause.
That would be useless. Legislation passed by the current Congress cannot limit what legislation can be passed by future Congresses; only Constitutional amendment can do that, and even such amendments cannot limit future amendments. (ISTR that this has been held in court, quite possibly by the Supreme Court.)
If the U.S. has signed on to that Declaration, then it is indirectly binding on the U.S. government, although it will not govern in cases where it conflicts with higher authority (such as the Constitution).
In the absence of such a conflict, however, why wouldn't it be relevant?
No - what they're claiming here is that people like relevant ads better than they like irrelevant ones. The alleged benefit is that the ads people see will be more frequently useful than they otherwise would, and therefore will waste less of the people's time and bandwidth than would otherwise be the case.
This is still a dubious proposition, but it's not quite as obviously ludicrous.
Re: Must be from the Bill of Rights: Special Edition
The key word which lets them do this is here:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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.
Nothing in that says that a warrant, or probable cause, is required for a search to be reasonable.
The arguments here which seem intuitively obvious to me are something like:
It is clearly reasonable to search luggage, etc., of people who are attempting to cross the border at a checkpoint.
Because such a search is reasonable, it does not require a warrant.
It is also clearly reasonable to search in areas within a short travel time of the border, to locate people or items which may have come across the border without passing through a checkpoint.
In the modern day, with modern vehicle technology, it is possible travel a hundred miles in two hours or less, without great difficulty.
Two hours is a short travel time, as cross-border journeys go.
Therefore a search within a hundred miles of the border is reasonable, and as such, does not require a warrant.
The resulting situation seems to me to be in clear conflict with the intent of the amendment, but it does seem compatible with the text, and the courts would seem to either disagree about that conflict or to hold the intent as less important than the text.
In fact, that points back to one of the key things people keep saying (and other people seem to miss) about this: biometrics make excellent replacements for usernames, but very poor replacements for passwords.
Require face- or fingerprint-recognition before the device asks for the passcode, then require the passcode before the device actually becomes unlocked. Slightly less convenient than either alone, but aside from that, more or less the best of both worlds.
Most of that sounds as if it fits quite well within the concept of hacking, in its original and proper sense. Computer gaming is a bit afield, but likely to have overlap with the interests of those whose hobbies include the other things, so it makes sense that it would also be accounted for.
I suspect both that you're using the term "hacking" in its popular-culture sense, which is more properly called "cracking", and that the site itself may not have been named with that sense of the term in mind. (The proper sense is, I believe, considered a superset of the other sense.)
I keep seeing this mentioned, and I don't know where people get it from.
Maybe I was missing things during the campaign, but the first I saw of an anti-Russia attitude from the Clinton camp came in the form of pointing out how strongly pro-Russia Trump seemed to be, and then in the form of expressing opposition to Russia's actions in Syria - which, as reported in the news, were such that it would seem reasonable to be opposed to them regardless.
And even then, I didn't see a push for war.
Where do people get this idea that the Clinton camp was pro-war, much less in support of "try[ing] to start shit with Russia"?
As long as we have only single-choice, first-past-the-post voting, we do have only two meaningful political parties, because of the vote-concentrating influence of the spoiler effect.
If we want to have more viable political parties (which I do!), we need to campaign to switch over to a ranked-preferences voting system, preferably one which satisfies the Condorcet criteria.
It is my understanding that Maine adopted just such a system, by ballot measure in this last election. It will be worth keeping a close eye on what happens in Maine's elections, in the next few cycles.
I suspect the argument is "if the people from whom these funds were seized were innocent, they would have contested the seizure" plus "by taking the proceeds of their crimes away from them, we prevent them from profiting from their crimes, which discourages them and others from committing such crimes".
That doesn't seem sufficient to me, but I can see how it could seem sufficient to someone in the DEA.