Eavesdropping on your child (or your children) is NOT! wrong and
Definetly NOT! illegal! Who says it is illegal? fed govt!? fed govt
creates the problem(s) and fed govt steps in to "try" to solve the
problem(s) I Never believe Anything fed govt says is true.Old saying
goes,If their lips are moving,They are Lieing!
cuhulin

wrote in message
...
Eavesdropping on your child (or your children) is NOT! wrong and
Definetly NOT! illegal!

Um, wrong. If the courts rule it is illegal, then by definition it is
illegal. An example of how a court can legally make a law.

Who says it is illegal? fed govt!? fed govt
creates the problem(s) and fed govt steps in to "try" to solve the
problem(s) I Never believe Anything fed govt says is true.Old saying
goes,If their lips are moving,They are Lieing!
cuhulin

Um, wrong. If the courts rule it is illegal, then by definition it is
illegal. An example of how a court can legally make a law.

No, courts can't do that. If a court finds that something is illegal, then
it is finding that someone broke a law, it is not making a law.

"Brian Running" wrote in message
...
Um, wrong. If the courts rule it is illegal, then by definition it is
illegal. An example of how a court can legally make a law.

No, courts can't do that. If a court finds that something is illegal,
then
it is finding that someone broke a law, it is not making a law.

Not true at all. Take a basic college political science class. You are
talking about statutory law. Our constitution and many laws are very loosely
written in order to stay relavent. It is the job of the courts to take that
framework and interperet what is legal and illegal. This is called common
law. Once a ruling is made, stare decisis requires other courts to apply
this ruling to any similar cases.

Um, wrong. If the courts rule it is illegal, then by definition it is
illegal. An example of how a court can legally make a law.

No, courts can't do that. If a court finds that something is illegal,
then
it is finding that someone broke a law, it is not making a law.

Not true at all. Take a basic college political science class.

I'll do better than that -- how 'bout law school and 16 years of practicing
law? Your original statement was, "If the courts rule it is illegal, then
by definition it is illegal." That's wrong. Courts don't have freedom to
make law, they interpret areas that specific laws don't explicitly cover,
and those interpretations become binding precedent if they are decided by
the highest court in that jurisdiction. In the case that started this whole
thread, the court did not find any activity to be illegal, it simply applied
the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule that developed in case law to
enforce the Fourth Amendment. It did not determine for the first time that
anything was illegal.

All this shrieking about eavesdropping on your kids being illegal seems to
be based on the comments of the kid's lawyer, and not upon what the court
actually ruled. Washington law requires the consent of all parties to a
telephone conversation to consent to its recording, apparently (many states
only require the consent of one party). It's not illegal to eavesdrop, but
any evidence that obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be
used to prosecute you criminally.

"Brian Running" wrote in message
...
Um, wrong. If the courts rule it is illegal, then by definition it is
illegal. An example of how a court can legally make a law.

No, courts can't do that. If a court finds that something is illegal,
then
it is finding that someone broke a law, it is not making a law.

Not true at all. Take a basic college political science class.

I'll do better than that -- how 'bout law school and 16 years of
practicing
law? Your original statement was, "If the courts rule it is illegal, then
by definition it is illegal." That's wrong. Courts don't have freedom to
make law, they interpret areas that specific laws don't explicitly cover,

We are saying the same thing here in two different ways. Since a court is
charged with determining the legality of an activity in question, then in
essence, if there is no prescedent, they are determining whether or not that
activity is legal or illegal. That activity is then, essentially, deemed
"illegal". I am not trying to imply that a court can write statutory law.

and those interpretations become binding precedent if they are decided by
the highest court in that jurisdiction. In the case that started this
whole
thread, the court did not find any activity to be illegal, it simply
applied
the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule that developed in case law
to
enforce the Fourth Amendment. It did not determine for the first time
that
anything was illegal.

All this shrieking about eavesdropping on your kids being illegal seems to
be based on the comments of the kid's lawyer, and not upon what the court
actually ruled. Washington law requires the consent of all parties to a
telephone conversation to consent to its recording, apparently (many
states
only require the consent of one party). It's not illegal to eavesdrop,
but
any evidence that obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be
used to prosecute you criminally.

So,is sodomy legal? (I Say it isn't!!!) I seem to remember the so called
"supreme court" (VERY UNsupreme in my Opinion) has dictated that
disgusting sodomy is legal.I VERY MUCH DISAGREE! with them Stupid
A@@Holes!!!
cuhulin

If I had any chiluns and I Eavesdrop on them,,what does any rear ends in
fed govt "think" they want to do about it! I Say it is parents rights to
Know what their chiluns are up to!
cuhulin