Parts of the Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional 414
BlueBlade writes "According to this CBS story, a federal judge ruled Wednesday that two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without a showing of probable cause."
And this took how long? (Score:5, Insightful)
Useless Victory (Score:4, Insightful)
And this took how long?-long enough. (Score:3, Insightful)
Score one for the Founding Fathers (Score:2, Insightful)
All I have to say is... (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/09/27/myanmar.protests/index.html [cnn.com]
That could very well be in our future if we write blank checks for terrorism prevention. Lets keep our own house in order so when we go to clean up someone elses house we don't look like fools.
Re:And this took how long? (Score:1, Insightful)
How long before it's considered illegal to do something "unamerican"? And don't expect the court - if you're lucky enought to get a trial - to even let you know what unamerican act you commited; it will probaly be unamerican to even describe it.
*sight* What went wrong with the USofA?
Re:And this took how long?-long enough. (Score:1, Insightful)
Funny, breaking the constitution was certainly like a speedboat.
What happens when things break down faster than they can be fixed....
Re:And this took how long? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And this took how long? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush?
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:And this took how long? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush?
Nah, the downfall started before him - otherwise how did he manage to get elected in the first place?
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:5, Insightful)
Changing viewpoints isn't such a bad thing when new information concludes that your current viewpoint is wrong. What really bothers me is how the current American administration marches forward with their "principles" despite a vast quantity of evidence that suggests they are wrong.
That's corruption without a lack of a spine... and it is even more dangerous.
Re:And this took how long? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Regarding Ron Paul... (Score:3, Insightful)
There are no terrorists. Al Qaeda is and has been working for the CIA and the NSA. And Ron Paul is the only guy on the roster who sees that and is willing to clear it up. Hillary and Barrack both voted for the PATRIOT Act and the war. So did Fred Thompson and Mit Romney. These are facts, not FUD, and I'm not trying to start a flamewar, so mod me down if you like mods, but metamods need to pay attention, too, because you aren't supposed to mod based on your political opinion.
Re:And this took how long? (Score:5, Insightful)
I was asking myself the same question (parent of this parent as well), why did it take several years for something that was so much of a blatant violation of the Bill of Rights be removed? Does it actually take a challenge (ie lawsuit) for a court to overturn anti-constitutional laws?
You can go back even farther, how in the world did Congress ever allow this bill to become law anyway? Oh, did it ride on the coattails of another bill that was a sure-in to be signed? Now THAT is something that I think needs to change. If something is important enough to go before Congress, it should warrant its OWN vote, and not be able to be attached to something else, especially if the bill it's being attached to has nothing to do with the attached bill.
Of course, lets see Congress pass a law outlawing that. Where are the checks and balances here?
They didn't really talk much about the underhanded tricks of Congress in my high school government class.
Re:Extraconstitutional authority (Score:1, Insightful)
Those powers which are not explicitly granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the People
Or some such thing. Kinda ignored for a long time.
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:1, Insightful)
there - fixed that for ya.
Re:And tonight's top story.... (Score:5, Insightful)
For decades polls have shown the American people would not support the Bill of Rights if it were up for a vote today. Finally we have a government that's done something about that. It takes a judge to get in the way, to confuse things.
Re:And this took how long? (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about it like this, if it took 5 years to have a piece of the Patriot Act thrown out.. what's to stop another identical new law from being passed and taking ANOTHER 5 years to have it thrown out, all the while being used to illegally wiretap? The only way to stop this from happening again is prosecute those who did the illegal wiretaps.
Re:And this took how long? (Score:5, Insightful)
I want to pitch a little bit of history of the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. It is critical to this discussion.
The Bill of Rights pushed by the "Anti-Federalists" led by Thomas Jefferson was never intended to give the government power nor was it intended to do anything other than provide a tripwire for the citizens to know the government was getting out of hand. It wasn't an enumeration of rights either. T. Jefferson saw the French Revolution supposed to be a copy of our own revolution going seriously wrong. He built this to prevent terror by the state. That is the reason pure and simple. It was to protect the people from terrorism of the worst kind.
Rather than being a beginner to terrorism as the press and President would have you believe the USA was forged in a sea of terrorism. Its right there in the Declaration of Independence if you want to read it. It happened in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama from 1810 to 1814 with tens of thousands killed. It happened in the Plains Indian Wars of the 1867 to 1885 period. It happened again in the West USA as late as after 1900! (I know my family was there!) Yes it was state sponsored. England Paid the bills. Yes it was religious extremist terrorists every time.
The USA is an ignorant fool if it thinks that giving up its right will make it safe. These rights including the right to be armed are essential rights. Just like removing the quills from a porcupine does not make it safer or protect its rights, removing the rights of people does not make them safe or protect them. Just as a quill free porcupine is now at risk of all terrors people without their rights are the same. As nobody makes a business of kicking porcupines nobody makes a business of picking on a well armed and well defended people who defend their rights.
Today we in the USA see ourselves threatened on every side by a terrorism of the State which is using Al Quada as a mafia enforcer to extract about a trillion dollars in stolen money from the American People each year as a result of this protection racket. This engine of terrorism comes up with new threats every appropriations season in congress. This terrorism by the state has broken our currency stealing more than 1/3 of the value of everything in the USA. It has broken our armed forces in the world and threatens to sink the entire world into a new reign of terror such as has never been seen. All of this is in the name of the "Patriot Act". Real patriots will oppose the sheering of rights that makes this possible.
Amazing it made it this far! (Score:5, Insightful)
Fine, I'll give the legislators a bone here about passing this legislation while everyone was reeling from 9/11, but I still can't believe that our leaders who are voted to protect the Constitution VOTED FOR IT AGAIN! Amazing!
This piece of garbage is not about 'protecting freedom' - it's all about control and falls in line with Daddy Bush's vision of the New World Order. The largest obstacle to this was the American Constitution. Take away those rights, and it's easy to become dictator. I'm glad SOMEONE in power woke the fuck up and saw that the unPatriot Act pretty much canceled out every major right the Constitution guarantees US citizens!
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
Attemted treason (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And this took how long? (Score:5, Insightful)
The US government of today dwarfs the US government of only 100 years ago, both in revenue and power over the people.
The US government is now the most expensive, most powerful government AND world empire (military bases in some 150 countries around the world) that has ever existed.
Clearly, this near-exponential growth of government over the past century began well before Bush was even born, and in all probability, will continue long after he's gone. Forget about who's holding power at any given time -- what we need to recognize is the big picture, and clearly, the big picture shows a government determined to expand in power and revenue year after year.
I think it's time to swallow our pride and accept that the driving force behind government is self-interest. There's a reason why every year we are subject to more laws than the year before, and every year government takes in more revenue than the year before -- and it's not because making government bigger is unprofitable for those in the business of government.
Make no mistake, this is the biggest, most lucrative business that could ever exist.
Re:Regarding Ron Paul... (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference between a murder and a murder conducted as a hate crime is that in the latter, the murder has an additional purpose in that it's perpetrated to serve as a warning toward members of the attacked group. I.e.: A hate crime committed against a homosexual is supposed to serve as a warning to other homosexuals in the community. A hate crime committed toward an African American, is supposed to serve as a warning to other African Americans -- think of a lynching, where the body is left hanging for public display. Thus, there actually is a difference in murdering an individual, and also hoping that said murder will serve as a "Fags go home", or "Know your place nigger" warning statement. Not to throw a word around that is often used incorrectly, but it's a form of terrorism against those communities -- not only was the victim attacked, but the community was as well, hence the additional penalty of committing the crime. (That's using the definition of terrorism as an act that is supposed to instill fear and intimidation into a group of individuals)
Re:The Bravest Woman in American Government (Score:3, Insightful)
Although I am unfamiliar with her situation, I suspect that this particular judge will rise no higher in the ranks of the Federal Government
That would be up to us. If we remember her for her good works, and demand her promotion via the electoral process, she will advance. If we keep electing corporate plutocrats... Perhaps not.
Re:Regarding Ron Paul... (Score:5, Insightful)
True. However, the courts already make a sharp distinction between expressive speech and expressive action; burning a cross on a lawn, for example, is intended to cause real harm of the sort you describe, and has no external speech value (unless it's in a Madonna music video...;)). The problem with hate crime legislation per se is that it serves to dissolve the distinction between prohibited acts and prohibited motivations; I don't have much problem with "Hate Crime Legislation" that has a discrete evidentiary burden for a criminalized act intended and normally understood to intimidate a community of persons. However, the difficulty of crafting such legislation finely enough to avoid the criminalization of attitudes and intents that are distasteful but not terroristic is such that I am skeptical any body of legislators (being human and thus subject to the passions and hysterias of the crowd) can successfully do so in all but the most obvious and clear-cut types of behaviors.
I personally think government should solemnly give up the notion it can make people better and concentrate on preventing people from harming each other with overt acts. The protection of communities, including disadvantaged ones, comes from them being assured that they are secure in their persons from harm, and that only comes from the Rule of Law being clear and acting to quash destructive behaviors and acts by applying that rule. Suppressing ideologies for their own sake is never very successful.
Re:AdBlock Plus Plus (Score:3, Insightful)
File > Save Page
Step 2:
Open html page in text editor.
Step 3:
Search/Replace "Ron Paul" with "Santa Clause".
Step 4:
Open saved page in browser of choice.
Step 5:
Feelings of good tidings and joy.
Re:And this took how long? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And this took how long? (Score:5, Insightful)
Tax receipts are the highest they've ever been due mostly to the fact that the economy is larger than it's ever been. More money coming in to the country as a whole means more money the government can skim off the top. This is true regardless of what the tax rate is, so long as the economy is continuously growing at some rate greater than zero.
The real question to ask is what impact have these particular tax cuts had on the overall growth rate of the economy. The answer to this question, of course, has to take into account an almost infinite number of factors, and does not really have a clear answer, which is why tax cuts are such great political tools. You cut taxes, and when the economy inevitably grows (as it has done nearly every year for decades) you can take all the credit for it. If you are unlucky enough to cut taxes at a time when the economy contracts, you can claim that the people (who are now poorer because of the contraction) need more tax relief, and cut taxes again. Then, when the economy grows, you can again take credit for it.
The truth is, the tax rate under normal conditions has very little impact on total economic growth. The economy is just too large and complex for a minor (in comparison with total revenue) tax cut to have a major impact. Unless the rate swings wildly (say, from 20 to 90% in the space of a few years), it will not impact economic growth in any significant way. Other government decisions can have far greater impacts on the economy than fiddling with the tax rate ever could.
Re:Attemted treason (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And this took how long? (Score:2, Insightful)
But, even if that isn't considered abuse of presidential power, I think it would be over the course of the first half of the 20th century when we went from an isolationist, federalist, fairly libertarian state to a meddling, centralized, nanny beauracracy. FDR implemented the nanny state during the Great Depression, and his foreign policy wasn't what we would call isolationist. I'm not a history buff, so I don't know how the presidents before him would rate, but it seems to me that alot of our governmental problems can be traced back to him. But maybe that's just because he spent four terms in office...
Re:Regarding Ron Paul... (Score:5, Insightful)
That is not what Ron Paul says. He does not believe there is any conspiracy with the US government behind the terrorist attacks, just that our government's incompetence made it easier for them.
I'm a Paul supporter, also, and I'm sure you're trying to help. But, seriously, support from conspiratorialists helps Ron Paul about as much as support from the Communist party helps David Kucinich.
Re:Regarding Ron Paul... (Score:3, Insightful)
If these are facts, how about some citations and references? Credible sources would make this assertion even more interesting.
Re:What is happening to /.? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And tonight's top story.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And this took how long? (Score:2, Insightful)
There are different times when these apply. When it comes to airport security, you are consenting to having your person and belongings searched. Being searched is not forced upon you; you can always choose another form of travel. Since you have consented--by sheer virtue of being an airline passenger--the rules of 'reasonable' and 'warrants' do not apply.
The notions of 'reasonable' and 'warrants' come into play when you do not consent to a search. Police officers cannot subject you to a search (without a warrant & without consent) unless they have strong evidence you are in the process of committing a crime, etc. Otherwise, law enforcement must petition a judge with their claim, and the judge rewards the search warrant based upon the merits of those claims.
It is my understanding warrants are *absolutely* required for non-emergency searches when the property owner is not present. Regardless of whether the search is "reasonable" or not, this portion of the Patriot Act is unconstitutional because search warrants are being granted without the required "probable cause."
No probable cause == no search warrant. No search warrant & no consent == no search. Any other way requires a change to the constitution.
Re:Obama did NOT vote for the war. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Regarding Ron Paul... (Score:3, Insightful)
The constitution explicitly bans the establishment of a state religion -- and that's for a purpose. It seems fine when when you agree with the state religion, but it really sucks when the slippery slope gets so steep that you're persecuted for not believing in the same god as the (current) government does. Imagine if Utah had a $100/day head tax for non-Mormons, and the surrounding states retaliated with a $100/day tax for being Mormon. Imagine it then going downhill from there... There are many times in history when people were Killing each other over which religious sect held sway (from the later roman empire, to the British wars of succession to modern-day Iraq).
Many of the framers of the constitution were (children of) religious refugees.
They weren't anti-religious. Quite to the contrary -- you have to have a very strong faith to pull up stakes and move to a wild continent rather than just silently put up with the current political fad in religiousity. The point of the separation of church and state was that they wanted to be able to partake in their own brand of devout religion, independent of the (often fake) piosity of the current President/Governor.