Absolutely applies to the context at hand, you just did the meme...
Everything you've mentioned though has nothing to do with opening Pandora's box re: ICE etc (which is already open).
when using a third party, people have abdicated their fourth amendment protections
4th amendment is about unreasonable search and seizure, no new precedent has been set here. Taking witnesses phones at the scene of an incident is not uncommon, it's not "unreasonable" because its not arbitrary, these people were at a scene therefore probable cause, its not a dragnet.
3rd party data collection is a technology enabled loop-hole, but also not new. People volunteering data to 3rd parties without something analogous to attorney-client-privlege certainly gives the state more power, but that's not the state seizing that power.
Where are all the social-justice warriors on enacting something similar to attorney-client privilege? Nowhere, because the deep state that astroturfs them uses and has used this same data.
That's missing the forest for the trees anyway, the NSA knows whats on your phone regardless and you accepted that when you bought a closed source device. The 4th amendment simply makes it not admissible, and the government has an incentive not to divulge the full extent of its capabilities over paid agitators at a mundane hissy fit. That knowledge can however be used to point to things that are admissible.
"Show me the man and I'll show you the crime" is well-known as a communist quote, but as old as human organization in practice.
Think about TSA: normalizing the suspension of rights
If you've got something new that 10s of thousands of lawyers over decades have overlooked, let's hear it. I don't think anyone has come close to making the case that the right to free travel is abridged by denying access to government run infrastructure. Your right to walk across the country hasn't been abridged.
eg banking
You mean how the Trump organization is suing JPM and BoA and using the political de-banking to push Bitcoin?
no more filibuster
Not a constitutional issue.
Once these things are removed, they'll be used by both parties.
The case for Republicans removing the filibuster it is that Democrats already plan to do it if returned to majority and have openly stated so.
The more important context being that it would be for cleaning up the elections, as rigged elections are democrats only path to returning to majority.
Being so feckless as allowing them to return to power through rigged elections would be a Kerensky moment, the same weakness that let the Bolsheviks take over and do far worse than anything lolbertarians are queasy about.
things like a supermajority requirement on some votes can be a protection against tyranny
All for not if elections are rigged. The same super-majority requirement prevents dismantling parts of the administrative state, you can't complain the government never shrinks if you handcuff the people that would shrink it. People that would expand it don't have these qualms, so you're putting any good guys at a disadvantage which is how we got here in the first place.
some constraints on government power
Who puts the constraints on government power? who enforces that? The government. It's a circular argument. Power vacuums get filled regardless, you either wear the boot or the boot wears you.
So with all that cleared up, wtf has ICE/CBP/DHS done that pushes new boundaries? Or is this only on peoples minds because the queasy and feckless are still brainwashed enough by the MSM to virtue signal about the headlines du jour?
Absolutely applies to the context at hand, you just did the meme...
Everything you've mentioned though has nothing to do with opening Pandora's box re: ICE etc (which is already open).
4th amendment is about unreasonable search and seizure, no new precedent has been set here. Taking witnesses phones at the scene of an incident is not uncommon, it's not "unreasonable" because its not arbitrary, these people were at a scene therefore probable cause, its not a dragnet.
3rd party data collection is a technology enabled loop-hole, but also not new. People volunteering data to 3rd parties without something analogous to attorney-client-privlege certainly gives the state more power, but that's not the state seizing that power.
Where are all the social-justice warriors on enacting something similar to attorney-client privilege? Nowhere, because the deep state that astroturfs them uses and has used this same data.
That's missing the forest for the trees anyway, the NSA knows whats on your phone regardless and you accepted that when you bought a closed source device. The 4th amendment simply makes it not admissible, and the government has an incentive not to divulge the full extent of its capabilities over paid agitators at a mundane hissy fit. That knowledge can however be used to point to things that are admissible.
"Show me the man and I'll show you the crime" is well-known as a communist quote, but as old as human organization in practice.
If you've got something new that 10s of thousands of lawyers over decades have overlooked, let's hear it. I don't think anyone has come close to making the case that the right to free travel is abridged by denying access to government run infrastructure. Your right to walk across the country hasn't been abridged.
You mean how the Trump organization is suing JPM and BoA and using the political de-banking to push Bitcoin?
Not a constitutional issue.
The case for Republicans removing the filibuster it is that Democrats already plan to do it if returned to majority and have openly stated so.
The more important context being that it would be for cleaning up the elections, as rigged elections are democrats only path to returning to majority.
Being so feckless as allowing them to return to power through rigged elections would be a Kerensky moment, the same weakness that let the Bolsheviks take over and do far worse than anything lolbertarians are queasy about.
All for not if elections are rigged. The same super-majority requirement prevents dismantling parts of the administrative state, you can't complain the government never shrinks if you handcuff the people that would shrink it. People that would expand it don't have these qualms, so you're putting any good guys at a disadvantage which is how we got here in the first place.
Who puts the constraints on government power? who enforces that? The government. It's a circular argument. Power vacuums get filled regardless, you either wear the boot or the boot wears you.
So with all that cleared up, wtf has ICE/CBP/DHS done that pushes new boundaries? Or is this only on peoples minds because the queasy and feckless are still brainwashed enough by the MSM to virtue signal about the headlines du jour?