I'm not an expert in fourth amendment but I do know that assuming a subpoena without judicial oversight violates the fourth amendment is not correct. All the fourth amendment guarantees is unreasonable search and seizure. In some circumstances a judicial subpoena may be necessary and others not. An administrative subpoena implies that there has been a legal procedure and the administrative agencies are not exactly run like the wild west.
> An administrative subpoena implies that there has been a legal procedure and the administrative agencies are not exactly run like the wild west
Hard disagree. The fact that a government agency "reviewed" its own subpoena before enforcing it does not follow the spirit of the Fourth Amendment, which is to prevent government overreach in taking your belongings and information.
In fact, to take your definition of what's not unreasonable to its logical conclusion, by definition any process an agency came up with would be acceptable, as long as they followed it.
I think a better definition of a reasonable search and seizure would be one where a subpoena goes before a judge, the target of the subpoena is notified and has the opportunity to fight it, and where there are significant consequences for government agents who lie or otherwise abuse the process of getting a subpoena.
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.
>>no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation<<
that means there must be affirmation of probable cause to an overseeing body [i.e. judiciary]
administrative warrants are a process of "i know im right i dont need someone else to look things over"
If the party on the receiving end of a search needs to be a lawyer to simply understand the legality of a warrant, I’d argue the search is unreasonable.
> All the fourth amendment guarantees is unreasonable search and seizure.
Are you saying that by the existence of the fourth that unreasonable search/seizures are guaranteed to happen? It can't guarantee protection from them either.
DHS/ICE is in a weird constitutional spot. Most immigration violations in the US are _civil_ violations. So the Fourth Amendment is less applicable. It's also why detained immigrants don't automatically get the right to be represented by a lawyer.
ICE/DHS technically are just acting as marshals, merely ensuring that defendants appear at court proceedings and then enforcing court decisions (deportations).
It's not really that the 4th amendment is less applicable, it's that the procedural protections are lower in civil proceedings.
I think it's a pretty big undersell to describe ICE as "marshals" too - they've got plenty of discretion in how they prioritize targeted people and who they detain. They are not just a neutral party executing court orders.
In theory yes, but in practice it's more unclear. There are conflicting Supreme Court precedents, that weaken the Fourth Amendment in cases where criminal penalties don't apply. Asset foreiture is another example.
> I think it's a pretty big undersell to describe ICE as "marshals" too - they've got plenty of discretion in how they prioritize targeted people and who they detain. They are not just a neutral party executing court orders.
Yep. That's also a difference between theory and practice.
What exactly do you disagree with? Most immigration violations are a civil matter (USC section 8). There are criminal violations like human trafficking or illegal entry. But if you came into the US with a visa and then overstayed, you're not committing anything criminal.
And even illegal entry is a misdemeanor, the maximum punishment is at most 6 months in jail. So yeah, ICE and DHS _technically_ don't have more power than regular marshals for most immigration cases.
Which should scare you, btw. There are plenty of civil violations that can be similarly weaponized in future.
Sounds reasonable particularly given age of account implementation. And even if new account, if I don't have my face scanned then they won't show all the garbage. I have no problem with that.
I agree with the normalcy comment re screen printing. But the video does seem too high resolution from what I would expect. And why doesn't author discoose the source or a reason video was taken. Odd that there's very little chatter between employees but they were in front of a camera. Otherwise very interesting video. We loved battlezone.Way cooler than any other game at the time.
> But the video does seem too high resolution from what I would expect.
Completely depends on what they were shooting on, the state of the media, the scanning methods used, any post-processing, etc. At first glance this does not look AI generated to me but hey, could be wrong
It's the norm in most western countries. Prosecution of administration official is still rare, but nothing like the obvious free permit to misbehave we see in the US.
It seems you can't ignore a lot of this is a product of fewer children, temporary and transitional relationships that are not governed by the boundaries of marriage, and fewer intact families. This leads to fewer siblings, fewer responsibilities toward others, and more opportunities to be and feel isolated. There is a reason why the concept of a family protected by certain legal responsibilities and obligations have been around for a long time. I can't imagine getting older and having no children or siblings. I look at my parents and the only reason why they advanced into old age with tons of support is because of their siblings and children. Friends only go so far. Also the loss of belief in God and purpose lived out through regular Church attendance, charitable activities with a purpose, and community prayer leads to fractured relationships, philosophical and existential anxieties, no matter how many people you have around you. There's a reason why religious communities and institutions have survived thousands of years through all sorts of political upheavals and change. The modern experimentation rejecting God and family doesn't seem to be working out so well. As the older population ages (and increasingly gets euthanized), the younger population shrinking, and the greater reliance on recreational drugs and technology to fill the void, it really doesn't seem that hard to understand the increasing loneliness.
I grew up in the 90s chronically online, isolated, abused, and socially awkward. Then I started working out, losing weight, trying to get better socially, then left atheism and became a Christian at 17, quit drugs and porn, met my wife, we now have 4 kids, love our church, and I can’t even imagine what loneliness feels like now. With 4 kids and a future with grandkids, pile in all our friends from church, hard to imagine a future where I’ll ever feel that emptiness and loneliness again. There’s a lot of hard work and pain I didn’t mention but it’s all been worth it
Yeah, life isn't one of those "old single friends living together" sitcoms. Most interaction is with family, anything else is more of a bonus that can't be relied on.
There are also plenty of cultures with family values not rooted in religion.
We seem to agree that what replaced religion (for profit social media) is not a basis for a strong society, or fulfilling lives. Religion seems like a close 2nd worst option though.
I think it’s bigger than a decrease in attendance in religious groups though I agree the impact is felt there too. Social clubs, non-profits, fraternal and civic organizations, neighborhood associations, labor unions, local political chapters, trade associations, etc etc.
Basically all forms of outward focused, community or geographic based groups seem to have been on a downward trend for decades in favor of hyperreal, inward-focused online spaces.
Church is a big thing though, it's weekly and not some hobby or niche. Like I've moved more often than I kinda wanted to, and each time instantly started hanging out with friends I met after church, even though I wasn't going there to meet people.
It would be quite the opposite, the magic man favours families, children, and population growth. The rejection of these beliefs seems to be what is detrimental to society. The other stuff I'll leave for you to decide.
I'm not convinced, I believe the institutions of church were and often still are the foundations of communities in many positive ways.
But the fact that they rest on an arbitrary belief in one of the popular gods does make it a pretty shakey foundation.
We see it right now, as the belief in Christianity has dwindled so too have the communities the church was supporting, the community can be separate to belief and probably should be of it is to support a greater community.
> The modern experimentation rejecting God and family doesn't seem to be working out so well.
Although I agree with the sentiment, I think the problem is what replaced it, not that they were replaced. Religious belief has been replaced by a quasi-religion revolving around clipling autodetermination and aggrandizement.
I don't think people suffer from not having faith in some god nowadays, I think they suffer for not having faith, period. I see people around me prefering to live in known discomfort, than choosing to "roll the dice". Religion played the role of teaching people not everything that happens to them is in their control, and comforting them that it would all turn out well. What we have nowadays is the awfuly debilitating belief that everything that happens in your life is your own doing, and that unless there's evidence thigns will work out, there's no reason to believe they will.
I personally see the risk-adversity this philosophy leads to everywhere. I see it in people prefering apps over potentially making a fools of themselves, or "risking it" with a stranger. I see it in people who want leave jobs or living situations but fail to take the leap. I see it in people strugging with even small decisions, obsessing over reading reviews for everything, refusing to commit in relationships.
Religion also gave you a certain peace of mind concerning your purpose in life, and assured you you could be perfectly content with little. In fact it assures you can be more "successful" at life than people who achieve great wealth or fame, since in religion success is measured by, say, devotion, acts of service, building a family, or other means instead.
This can be replaced by positive philosophies that focus people in the prusuit of eudaimonia, but instead have been replaced by reverence to aggrandizement and too often hedonism. The goal too often becomes fame, money, status, or, again, control, both out of fear your life might not be determined by you solely, and for the pursue of vain pleasures.
I see this as a product of an obsessive reverence to libertarian capitalism. Overall, it works very well in its favour. Convincing people the course of their lives depends soley on their own decisions is ingraining reverence for individualism and rejection for collectivism. The pursuit of wealth and status is good for the economy; when people are truly happy with the small things in life, they tend to buy less. I'm not saying libertarian capitalism lead to this philosophy, or that this philosophy lead to libertarian capitalism; I think they go hand-in-hand, and as one grows so does the other.
Your refrain is a common one, but it seems pretty hollow upon deeper investigation. Maybe consider why modern Americans aren’t making the same family structure and child count decisions as long ago.
In the days of subsistence farming, a child was an additional free worker. Once we mechanized farming, we went from 50% subsistence farming to 1%. Children moved from the profit-center column to the cost-center column.
Medicine improvements and government policies have reduced child mortality. Mothers no longer need to conceive 12 kids to ensure that 4 live to adulthood. Each birth is a much higher resource cost and a much larger responsibility than in generations past.
The gratifying life of being a stay-at-home mom to 18 kids only works so long as the father keeps the money rolling in and doesn’t decide to abandon the family (this happened to an aunt of mine). The modern changes to family structure didn’t happen out of the blue — they were a response to inadequate protections and violations of freedoms that people had at the time. You might consider educating yourself on your blind spots about the topic.
Churches are eating themselves. People aren’t “moving away from God” so much as seeing the churches as liars. Christianity is full of lies: many small, some big. The more that people are exposed to others with different perspectives, more education, and better ways to communicate complicated topics, the more likely people are to leave a church that lies to them. Churches which have been outed for covering up child sex abuse have seen outflows. Bad policies made it more likely that the child sex abuse would happen. Further bad policies prevented the abuser to go free without prosecution. Even further bad policies have allowed the internal investigations/reviews to be quietly ignored.
Ultimately small churches have empty pews because they aren’t entertaining. MegaChurches / televangelists based in Orange County, Dallas, Houston are pulling in members while small town churches close due to lack of membership. Churchgoers tend to care more about being engaged in the showmanship of the leader than the common benefits of keeping a community alive.
The other functions that churches serve (community service, reminders of purpose) are being replaced by the free market of ideas. Some churches are turning the pulpit into a political campaign. Many secular non-profits are taking up the slack of dying community churches by doing a slice of the same work without the lies, sex abuse, coercion, and threats of damnation.
Then there are completely unrelated changes in society. More people care more about having pets (dogs, cats) than children. Values change as society changes. Companies get far better at marketing than individuals get better at resisting marketing. Drugs, gambling, sex/porn, outrage / attention economy, etc have all been turbocharged via capitalism.
The values of the average person have changed a lot. It doesn’t make sense to cling to the old institutions if they don’t meet the people where they are.
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2025/12/27/a.... This mentions the Trump angle. It also mentions that the report came out before the 2020 election and could be fake. I'm a little confused because the report itself says nothing about Trump so don't know where the Free press gets that and they don't tell you what the source is or I missed it.
Edit: Oh I get it. The woman's statement Donald Trump is named as one of the witnesses. She says that he watched the murder. He wasn't the uncle. He is listed as a witness to the murder. This is highly highly suspect in my opinion. Seems very sensationalistic and no reason given it as to why Trump was there. His name is just thrown in.
The allegation is quite clearly that Trump participated in [ redacted ] this pregnant 13 year-old.
> [Trump] participated regularly in paying money to force me to [ redacted ] with him
The reason he was allegedly there was probably to [ redacted ] a 13 year old... That's what convicted rapists with deep connections to child sex traffickers do...?
reply