Anti-Patriot Act Movement Expands 671
MFS! writes "Mount Shasta, California has become the latest city where the USA PATRIOT act is creating a controversy. This story at the Record-Searchlight describes petitioning by a local citizens' rights committee to order police to defy the PATRIOT act. To date, 3 states and 130 cities have passed legislation forbidding local authorities from cooperating with federal PATRIOT requests, not to mention the numerous businesses who are taking pains to hamper the Act's coverage."
federal vs. state. (Score:5, Insightful)
What about California's (and others) medical pot legislations? Do the federal drug agents care when they storm into these people's "gardens" and prosecute them to the full extent of FEDERAL law?
Hell, do the Federal agents care when they destroy the Native American's HEMP fields (which were allowed under a law in the late 1800s?)
NO.
State's rights (which should be more important) aren't shit. Remember that.
Re:federal vs. state. (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry.
Re:federal vs. state. (Score:5, Insightful)
We need a new moderation category (Score:3, Funny)
Re:federal vs. state. (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Saying that treaties aren't laws seems hard to reconcile with them being part of the supreme law of the land.
Re:federal vs. state. (Score:5, Insightful)
The opposing situation is countries with no [explicit] bill of rights, rather some form of unwritten convention (even 'ideal'? Is that word too embarrasing to use in the 21st century?). This I think covers most other countries, where the constitution has less prominance (I am Australian, and I can confidently say that *no one* has any more than a vague notion of what it says - for good reason actually, it is a very boring document mostly talking about how Queen Victoria of England agrees to delegate Her power to the Australian Parliament), and there is no explicit "bill of rights" as such, rather the notions are embodied across a much wider scope, and it can't really be pinned down to one place. It is not uncommon to see stories of USA school students complaining to someone (headmaster, school board, whatever) that something that is imposed upon them violates their rights under the constitution[footnote]. The notion of involving the constitution in such a matter is actually quite ludicrous to an Australian (any Aussies out there, please argue the case if you think I am wrong). Not because those rights don't exist, but because they exist at more levels of society. Call it a sense of "fair play" or whatever you will, but it is far more important than the Constitution.
The point is this (and maybe this is even irony - until the last week I thought I had a fair idea what that meant, but I don't think so anymore): Having an explicit, legally intepretable document only allows the lawyers the excuse "we were only following the law" when they come up with some narrow interpretation that flies against the popular notion of what the spirit meant.
On the other hand, if there is no such written document, there is no room for argument over the interpretation, the only guide is the *spirit*.
The real question is, which system is more open to long-term abuse? Unfortunately I cannot predict the answer to that. The answer to the question of which system suffers more short/medium term abuse is, I think, obvious.
[footnote] (and I think this is *real* irony) Undoubtably, Australian minors have more actual rights than US minors.
Re:federal vs. state. (Score:5, Insightful)
You make a good point, but need to also consider what it takes on a local level for the feds to enforce the patriot act.
By forcing noncompliance, local areas can remove most of the teeth of the Patriot act. Businesses and libraries deliberately getting rid of client information after 24 hours removes most of the privacy-stripping portions of the act. Local police refusing to cooperate with the feds on Patriot-act related investigations leaves the feds with no more power than they had before. Entire states deliberately hindering federal investigations can, in many situations, leave the FBI et al in a worse position than before the Patriot act (when local police would often help as much as possible, even if they didn't need to).
So yes, this seemingly "only symbolic" protesting by states, cities, and private businesses does have the potential to make the Patriot act all but meaningless.
What about California's (and others) medical pot legislations?
If you followed it, you'll notice that Ed Rosenthal received a whopping one-day sentence, of time served. Even the Federal courts have started realizing that they can't sustain a war against their own member states.
Re:federal vs. state. (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately all they seem to have learned from the Rosenthal case is to beware of media coverage. Which is, as it stands, a good thing, but don't think federal judges aren't going to help the feds dismantle prop 215. The one day sentence was a huge turnaround for the judge and only occurred after most of the jurors came forward and said they had changed their decisions. The rule permitting gag orders such as the one employed in the Rosenthal case has not been challenged, which means that not only aren't you permitted a medical necessity defense under prop 215, you are not allowed to mention the proposition at all or anything related to it (i.e. your lawyer can't say, "my client was growing pot under the order of the city of Oakland as an appointed deputy put in charge of enforcing proposition 215." So Rosenthal was portrayed as a common drug dealer rather than an officer of the city.) Until judges stop invoking that rule, it's likely that the federal government's open attack on California law will continue to succeed.
Re:federal vs. state. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:federal vs. state. (Score:4, Insightful)
What about the 9th? Has this amendment ever been used for anything? To me it seems obvious that the War on Drug Users is a clear violation of the 9th amendment. But IANACL
Re:federal vs. state. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:federal vs. state. (Score:5, Informative)
And you are forgetting that the 10th ammendment [which gives states the rights not expressely given to the feds] has a counterpart called the elastic clause. This clause gives the feds the power to do things that are prudent and right for them to do. Throughout the history of the US, there has been a constant struggle between loose and strict constructionists [loose const supporting the elastic clause and strict const supporting the 10th ammendment - obviously, as the parties vied for power, whichever one came into power at the federal level quickly became a loose const and the people at power at the state level quickly adopted strict const philosophy.] However, time and time again, the fed gov't has been able to flex far more muscle, and so, invariable, the elastic clause wins over the 10th ammendment. Which is why state nullification has itself become null and void.
Re:federal vs. state. (Score:4, Informative)
The phrase "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;" give the Federal government huge powers over anything that can be said to affect interstate commerce. You'd be surprised how the most innocuous things can be tied to interstate commerce.
Re:federal vs. state. (Score:5, Interesting)
One of Oregon's senators - Gordon Smith I think - said he opposes this state law, but he fought for Oregon's right to have it.
Re:federal vs. state. (Score:5, Interesting)
Another example of his hypocrisy is his former strong opposition to the Clipper chip and statements made supporting the individual's right to privacy. But as soon as he was appointed to office as attorney general all that rhetoric went out the window and he quickly set to dismantling as many privacy rights as he could, and 9/11 only made that crusade easier when he was able to personally draft the USA-PATRIOT act.
Re:Except that there are no rights to privacy (Score:5, Informative)
The word "privacy" might not be explicity used in the Constitution, but one could make a strong case that the 4th and 10th amendments to the Constitution establish the principle that privacy (at least from the Government itself) is guaranteed by the Constitution.
And even if the Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to privacy, that doesn't mean there isn't one. There are rights that are even more fundamental than those enumerated by the Constitution... those are the "self-evident truths" and "inalienable" rights spoken of in the Declaration of Independence. It would be easy to argue that the right to privacy is a fundamental right that doesn't need to be spelled out in the Constitution.
Re:Except that there are no rights to privacy (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Except that there are no rights to privacy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:federal vs. state. (Score:3, Informative)
Check out the Free State Project [freestateproject.org] if you feel that st
Re:federal vs. state. (Score:2)
We already know what happened with that.. the feds did raid them and prosecuted them to the full extent of the law.
They raided one in California and went for the maximum sentence they could get while having the jury barred from hearing that California had allowed the growing for medical use.
That was already 3 ye
Re:federal vs. state. (Score:3, Informative)
"On Wednesday, June 4th, Ed Rosenthal walked out of federal court in San Francisco a free man, thanks to the generous support of the community."
So what they "went for" and what they got are two very different outcomes. Also note: "As a direct result of Ed's case, the Truth in Trials Act has been introduced in Congress to allow a medical defense in certain federal marijuana trials.
Re:federal vs. state. (Score:2)
1: If the constitution doesn't say anything, it's up to congress.
2: If congress doesn't say, it's up to the states.
States can augment federal law, but they can't contradict it (unless, I suppose, the law says they're allowed to).
Re:federal vs. state. (Score:5, Insightful)
1: If the constitution doesn't say anything, it's up to congress.
That's not quite what the constitution says. The founders put rather strict limitations on the power of congress and enumerated its specific ressponsibiliies. It also stated that all powers not enumerated in it would belong to the states.
In reality, Congress has assumed more power out of the interstate-commerce clause which led to minimum wage and other labor standards, social security, etc.
Re:federal vs. state. (Score:2)
Re:federal vs. state. (Score:2)
read my Previous post [slashdot.org] on the subject for more info
Re:federal vs. state. (Score:5, Insightful)
In a way, they can. If the required number of states (2/3) ratified a constitutional amendment disolving the federal government, that would be the end of the federal government. The fed has no such reciprical power to disolve state governments.
While things haven't come to that point yet, ultimately, the states wear the pants in the family.
Not true. (Score:4, Informative)
1) Passed by 2/3 of Congress -> Ratified by 3/4 of states' legislatures
2) Introduced by 2/3 of states -> Ratified by 3/4 of states' legislatures
3) Passed by 2/3 of Congress -> Constutional Convention, 3/4 of states' delegations
4) Introduced by 2/3 of states -> Constitutional Convention, 3/4 of states' delegations.
So, there are two methods of dissolving the federal government where the federal government isn't even involved. Plus, remember -- Congress is voted from the people, so if it got to the point where the feds were so bad that the public would support government dissolution, the public could (and would) vote in people who felt the same way.
Re:federal vs. state. (Score:5, Informative)
Article 1, Section 8: (powers delegated to Congress)
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Re:federal vs. state. (Score:5, Funny)
That's it I'm going out and making myself some laws!
Re:federal vs. state. (Score:5, Interesting)
That's it I'm going out and making myself some laws
You were modded funny, but there's actually a truth in there that defines the American character, and explains why a dictatorship here is pretty unlikely.
For example, where I live it's illegal to have any fireworks that explode. Last night, it sounded like Beirut.
Most people get that stuff from NC, where they are legal. It occured to me that there's nothing more American than driving up I-95 15 miles an hour over the speed limit with a trunkload of illegal firecrackers, MP3s blasting through the stereo.
Americans have a low tolerance for stupid laws, in large part because the country was founded by people who violated such laws.
Picture the fathers of our country dressed up like Indians, trespassing on somebody's boat, and dumping all the cargo just because they didn't wanna pay taxes.
Now, it's hard to say how well this attitude will work to defeat the more stupid provisions of the Patriot Act, which is an interesting name if you think about it; after all, those people weren't patriots, they were just acting, which is a lot like pretending as in "pretenders to the throne". The real kings are the people--the people who break stupid laws.
Now, if the state is really, really determined, they can enforce stupid laws. The war on drugs is a prime example; but they can't do it forever. There has been a huge impact on the incarceration rate, all due to the American tendancy to break laws they don't agree with.
I keep wondering if we're going to have some kind of Bastille Day type episode over that.
At any rate, I think this ingrained attitude in the US, perhaps more than anything, will prevent us from falling into dictatorship. Call me an cockeyed optimist if you must.
Re:federal vs. state. (Score:2)
Re:federal vs. state. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:federal vs. state. (Score:4, Informative)
The winner gets to write the history books.
Re:federal vs. state. (Score:3, Informative)
The war was fought over securing and maintaining the Union. The war started due to slavery. Thats an oversimplification, but any reason you want to site to why the South succeeded from the North (economic, representation, etc) has a root in slavery. The 50+ years up until the war were a string of compromises (Clay inparticular) trying to keep the Union together over the divide slavery created.
So sure, the North wasn't on the battlefield to free the slaves,
Re:federal vs. state. (Score:3, Informative)
Lincoln's political moves regarding slavery were a reflection in
Re:federal vs. state. (Score:5, Insightful)
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Ordered the arrest, jailing and deportation of Congressmen and reporters.
The Army was sent into New York City during the 1863 draft riots to put them down.
There were more than 13,000 arrests of Northern civilians during the war after Lincoln had suspended the writ of habeas corpus, including dozens, if not hundreds, of newspaper editors and owners who were critical of the Lincoln administration.
In 1862 there was fighting between federal soldiers and settlers and the Santee Indians of Minnesota. At the end of the hostilities 303 Indians who were present at the conclusion of the fighting were arrested, imprisoned, and scheduled to be executed after military tribunals that lasted about ten minutes each. Lincoln was fearful that the European powers might be encouraged to be more supportive of the Confederacy if they learned of a mass execution of 303 men whose guilt had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, so he pared the number down to just 39.
Re:federal vs. state. (Score:4, Funny)
This is bad?
SB
Re:federal vs. state. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't you folks hurry up and conquer us? I for one could use a new gov't, not to mention a little more respect for hockey.
It's either that or my kids'll have to emigrate just to 1) avoid the draft, 2) get access to reproductive health care, 3) escape Ashcroft, 4) marry whomever they want.
Re:Canadian health care system is horseshit (Score:3, Insightful)
My two physician friends from the UK who've spent time working in the US laugh themselves silly about the state of clinical medicine here. They laugh about the lack of preventative medicine, they laugh about the overuse of absurdly expensive diagnostics that are not substantially better (gotta
Re:Canadian health care system is horseshit (Score:3, Informative)
Rebellion (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Rebellion (Score:2, Interesting)
I am also from the Netherlands. But I am more concerned about the dutch goverment follow the example of the US goverment. They are already considering limiting the rights of suspected terrorist.
In case you're curious... (Score:5, Informative)
doesn't federal law supercede local law? (Score:2)
For example let's say that Tennessee passed anti-DMCA legislation, and I get caught with mplayer/Xine/libcss on my my iBook. Could the MPAA still prosecute me under federal law? Would they have to extradite me to another state?
I was beginning to wonder (Score:2)
(As a minor, that's essentially what I have.)
How about the librarians? (Score:5, Insightful)
To date, 3 states and 130 cities have passed legislation forbidding local authorities from cooperating with federal PATRIOT requests, not to mention the numerous businesses who are taking pains to hamper the Act's coverage
How about mentioning some of the loudest critics- librarians. Most are madder than hell about the Patriot Act, and politicians are finding that going up against librarians(which are seen as by the public as incredibly smart, among other things) isn't very popular. From some of our youngest years, librarians have earned a place of respect as wise, intelligent, helpful, kind people.
Most libraries now display signs at checkout desks and computer workstations warning you they can be forced to turn over information about what you check out etc....and most also now destroy those records on a daily basis, paper or electronic.
And, as Peter Jennings pointed out with a smile on his face, your local library is a great place to sit down and read a copy of the Patriot Act. The librarians will be more than happy to assist.
Folks- libraries across the country are suffering from budget cutbacks just like everyone else. If you think it's awesome that librarians are on your side against the Patriot Act, might I suggest helping them back by volunteering? Think outside the (computer) box too- help reshelf books, read to kids in the children's library, etc...
Re:How about the librarians? (Score:3, Insightful)
Every time I hear how upset they are getting, I think about a great quote Spider Robinson had about librarians in The Callahan Touch [amazon.com]:
There are some other great quotes for/about librarians at Lib.Sigs [interaccess.com]
I.V.
Re:How about the librarians? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How about the librarians? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How about the librarians? (Score:5, Interesting)
While it is nice to assume that the government will do no damage with this information, history has shown otherwise. The patriot act allows them to find out anything about you and me. Tommorrow, the feds may decide that ppl who have ever read byte magazine may be terrorists so they will investigate all who fit that criteria. Or perhaps they will check who has read the quran and start investigations. Look at how hatfill's life is destroyed by being Ashcroft's "person of interest". No proof of any kind, yet destroyed. Look at the musleums still being held in prison for being "ppl of interest". No proof of any type (according to a recently released study) yet still being held.
Now, go back to the time of Reagan, Nixon, or J.E. Hoover. All have used information (or made up stuff) to destroy ppl the same way that Ashcroft now does. the more info that they have, the worse things will get.
Re:Crimes of Nixon and Clinton (Score:4, Insightful)
Clinton not telling the truth in a civil case totally unrelated to carrying out the duties of the office of President pales in comparison to Nixon's crimes:
I think to this day it burns up the 'Publicans that they didn't get anything on Clinton, unless their aim was to drag his name through the mud-- and they can't really claim any credit for that. Clinton's mistakes in his private life are his own. That they ever became grounds for impeachment is totally ludicrous. Nixon, on the other hand, failed to do what Bushie is attempting to do: subvert our democracy. Bushie found a convenient excuse: the "war of Scare-orism". Only a diligent citizenry will keep him from succeeding.
What we REALLY need (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What we REALLY need (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What we REALLY need (Score:2, Interesting)
What I'd like to see is people demand gold or silver as payment from states, since that is specifically required of them in the Constitution...
Re:What we REALLY need (Score:2, Interesting)
Revolutions travel 360 degrees (Score:3, Insightful)
Wake up (Score:5, Funny)
Doesn't the words Anti-Patriot scare the shit out of you?
Re:Wake up (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wake up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wake up - not just funny; true (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Wake up (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Greenland is not green, civil unrest is not civil, and spraying perfume on dogshit does not make it smell better.
Patriot Act is not and has never been for patriots of this country. It goes against what it means to be American.
Besides, it reads: Anti (Patriot Act), not (Anti-Patriot) Act.
Re:Wake up (Score:4, Interesting)
Theme of American history? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Theme of American history? (Score:4, Funny)
No, you're thinking of the Matrix. "We are all here because we have a certain affinity for disobedience."
Patriot Act is upsurd (Score:3, Insightful)
The Patriot Act is a symptom of a sick government
This thread is being monitored... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:This thread is being monitored... (Score:4, Insightful)
/flame mode on
Jefferson, Adams and Franklin are spinning in their graves fast enough right now to grant them a patent on perpetual motion.
You greedy fascist idiots have managed to fuck this country up to the point where it will take generations to repair the damage. Thanks a lot. I hope there is a hell, because you are going to rot in it. Satan would welcome such as you, you're his kind. Just remember, being a politician in hell, while being an elevated position, is not cupcakes and sweetcream.
If enough people in this country get a whiff of what you're really doing, there will not be a hole deep enough for you to hide in. Remember the members of the Armed Forces who have put their lives on the line, and sacrificed them, for the ideals which made this country great. Remember that there are enough people in this country who own firearms to make this resemble another Vietnam. Remember that, and repent your sins, morons.
You know where to find me, if you want me that badly. Just bring plenty of weapons, because I'm armed and considered seriously patriotic towards the PEOPLE of this country. Fuck you and your goddamn corporate cronies. If you want to play Who Will We Fuck Next, then we'll find a nice little island for you (Bikini Atoll perhaps) and put you all there so you can play your little dominance games with each other until you all die of Terminal Hemorrhoids.
Damn, I've wanted to vent for a while. Time to go outside now and be with the Three Dimensional People.
SB
Can't we all just get along? (Score:3, Funny)
Civil Disobedience as Communication Medium (Score:3, Interesting)
Keep in mind, most national senate/house members are profoundly out of touch with the communities they are supposed to represent. If, all of a sudden, the majority of your constituents demonstrate that they do not want the oppressive law you enacted to remain on the books, you might consider proposing a revocation, if you wish to be re-elected.
This is important. Even though the ill-concieved act was passed by a fear/power mad congress, it's critical to continue to publicly voice opposition to it, for as long as it takes to return the American fed to a sane level of checks and balance of power. If you are a freedom-loving American, it is your patriotic duty to publicly protest this foolish act before it does significant harm to our country and our culture.
Kremvax - Citizen, Patriot.
Sober second thought - Librarians, PATRIOT Act II (Score:5, Informative)
Understandably people are taking a closer look at the provisions under the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act now that the initial shock of 9/11 has worn off. The reaction to "do something" is not being governed by the climate of fear and the urgent feeling for a rapid response that followed the attacks, which also meant that many legislators didn't read or understand the entire bill. The fear of political opponents using a vote against a bill with the name "PATRIOT" didn't help.
Obviously many of those who are taking a sober second thought about the provisions don't like what they see, and this may be the start of a movement to let the sunset clause on the act take effect. It is set to expire at midnight (0h00) January 1, 2006.
Librarians are at the forefront of the movement and the American Library Association's USA PATRIOT Act campaign [ala.org] is one of many legislative and privacy issues [ala.org] that they address.
The July 4th weekend may be a good time to think about the USA PATRIOT act [bayarea.com], argues the SJMC. Declan McCullagh offers his thoughts on the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 AKA PATRIOT Act II [com.com]. You can also read EPIC's view of the DSEA 2003 [epic.org] and the original USA PATRIOT Act [epic.org]. They also have links to the text of the legislation and other info.
Communities Saying No to Repression (Oneworld.net) (Score:3, Interesting)
An invigorating article [oneworld.net] on the same topic from Jim Lobe at Oneworld.net United States:
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 4 (OneWorld) - More than 130 communities with a combined population of more than 16 million people in 26 states have passed resolutions directing local police to refrain from using racial profiling, enforcing immigration laws, or participating in federal investigations that violate civil liberties, according to a new report released on the eve of this year's Fourth of July celebrations by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
The 23-page report credits Ann Arbor, Michigan, with adopting the first resolution opposing key provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, thus setting off a trend that shows no sign of abating.
"In my conversations with people from across the political spectrum, I hear one refrain over and over," says Laura Murphy, who heads the ACLU's Washington, D.C. legislative office. "If we give up our freedoms in the name of national security, we will have lost the war on terrorism."
"As this year's Fourth of July rolls around, we hope that this report will demonstrate to the White House, the Justice Department and Congress that we must be both safe and free."
The ACLU, whose local offices played a major role in support of dozens of resolutions around the country, stressed that among the jurisdications that have taken action are a number of traditionally conservative areas of the country, such as Oklahoma City, Missoula, Montana; and Falgstaff, Arizona.
Some of the larger cities include Denver, Colorado; Oakland and San Francisco, California; Seattle, Washington; Detroit, Michigan; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Baltimore, Maryland. Three states have also adopted measures that call for strict respect for constitutional rights: Hawaii, Alaska, and Vermont.
The report, 'Independence Day 2003: Main Street Fights the Federal Government's Insatiable Appetite for New Powers in the Post 9/11 Era,' says the burgeoning grassroots movement was launched after demands by Attorney General John Aschroft were agreed to by Congress, which, it charges, "encouraged an atmosphere of hysteria," by approving the USA PATRIOT Act in late October 2001 with little debate and few dissenting votes.
The Act included a number of controversial provisions that, in the ACLU's view, upset the balance between the citizen's privacy and political rights and the state's responsibility to ensure the security of the country.
Some of those provisions included expanding the power of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; approval of "sneak and peek" warrants which allow federal agents to enter private homes without notifying the owner until much later; weakening the standards for intelligence wiretaps by permitting them to be used for criminal invstigations under some circumstances; and making it easier for federal agents to obtain highly personal "business records," such as library loan records, of possible terrorist suspects.
The Act itself was followed up with a flurry of executive orders, regulations, policies and practices, such as denying the right to a fair trial for citizens and non-citizens labeled "enemy combatants" and establishing military commissions that fall short of minimum due process standards, which further eroded civil liberties protection, according to the ACLU.
On January 7, 2002, Ann Arbor became the first city in the country to pass a resolution in direct response to the PATRIOT Act and new federal policies. "We're very concerned about civil rights and the about the potential discrimination," City Councilwoman Heidi Herrell told ABC News at the time. "We spent a lot of time since September 11 making sure that the Muslim members of our community felt safe."
Denver became the second city to approve a resolution after the ACLU there discovered the existence of 3,400 secret files on social activists that had been collected by the Denver Police over severa
A fitting quote (Score:5, Insightful)
When the people fear the government, its tyrrany.
Re:A fitting quote (Score:5, Informative)
When the people fear the government you have tyranny
When the government fears the people you have liberty.
--Thomas Jefferson
The successor of the PATRIOT ACT (Score:5, Funny)
Is not PATRIOT II, as many here seem to think.
It's actually the JINGOISM ACT, proposed as a secret law by Ashcroft. Since secret laws are a provision of the PATRIOT act, you will never hear of the JINGOSIM ACT until after you're arrested.
My Patriot Act experience.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I used [Megabank]'s services to pay my tuition bills at [esteemed UK university]. Today, I was called by [megabank] and was told that if I didn't tell them where the funds were coming from that I used to pay my tuition came from, that my accounts would be closed and my case referred to the federal government. While "my personal savings" was a good enough answer for them, good god, what shite.
In defense of [Megabank], they didn't seem to happy to have to make these phone calls, but told me that they were required to by the patriot act. in fact, the woman even spoke frankly that the company saw this as a waste of time and money too.
Re:My Patriot Act experience.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Am I to believe that if they called alqueda op #342 and asked "where is the money from", op #342 would say "saudi gov't terrorism fund". If op #342 is really willing to plot to destroy multiple lives, wouldn't he be willing to lie about where it came from?
they can't/shouldn't/won't verify the claims for all of these so why bother asking?
Relevant Ammendment and Supreme Court Case (Score:3, Funny)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
-------------
However, in 1819, the Supreme Court ruled in McCollough vs. Maryland that federal laws supercede state laws. More information can be found here. [ashbrook.org]
The ruling states
The States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burthen, or in any manner control the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into effect the powers vested in the national Government.
Re:Relevant Ammendment and Supreme Court Case (Score:3, Informative)
Slightly off-topic: How ironic (or fitting) that the source for the archive you quote from is Ashland University, a bastion of conservative Christian ideology right here in the heartland, and that the Ashbrook Center there is named after Rep. John Ashbrook, a conservative Republican who ran against Richard Nixon for the 1972 presidential nomination because he thought him to be too liberal! This is very interesting to me, because I wonder if conservatives like Ashbrook would support the Patriot Act like t
PATRIOT Act and HUAC (Score:3, Informative)
So this means... (Score:3, Informative)
So this means that as long as the Bush Administration can pass civil liberty eroding laws faster than the Supreme Court can hear them our society will move towards being a suppressive, totalitarian type of government.
The Bush administration has done more to destroy our way of life than any group of terrorists ever could. And the funny think is, is that the Republican party put Mr. Bush in power, not through the election process alone but in large part through litigation.
It seems to me that our laws are more and more being held hostage as tools for special interest groups.
If we want to reverse this trend we have to ensure that in next few elections we place people of integrity and intelligence into office. Something that this Administration is apparently lacking.
News claim is wrong. Only 1 city. (Score:4, Informative)
Cite one reputable news organization reporting that information. To my knowledge, only *1* city (Arcata, California) has passed an anti-Patriot Act law. The numbers you cite are cities and states expressing their displeasure with the Patriot Act. Those cities have said, "We don't like the Patriot Act." Arcata has said, "It is illegal for you to comply with the Patriot Act." BIG DIFFERENCE.
Arcata City Council passes "Anti-Patriot Act" ordinance [arcataeye.com]
McCarthyism (Score:3, Insightful)
It also is reminiscent of the witch hunts. It also sounds similar to the start of Nazi Germany with the secret police.
Meanwhile, numerous interest groups are taking aim at the Domestic Security Enhancement Act, which would strengthen the Patriot Act by allowing the government to make secret arrests, place unrestricted wiretaps and create DNA databases on ordinary Americans.
We need to protect our privacy or we will no longer be a free nation we will be no better than old Communist Russia where you can't make a move without the government knowing.
How many? (Score:4, Insightful)
The other side of the debate (Score:3, Interesting)
Library Aids for fighting the Patriot Act (Score:4, Informative)
Of note: Five technically legal signs for your library [librarian.net].
Re:Why hasn't this been shot down in the (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why hasn't this been shot down in the (Score:5, Insightful)
One word: standing. The Supreme Court only hear cases where the parties have standing. That means, some damage has to be done to you as a result of the Patriot Act. The Supreme Court does not test laws for constitutionality without a plaintiff who has standing.
Here's the trick though: if you fall victim to the Patriot Act, you may not have access to the judicial system. That means, you will never get a chance to challenge it in court.
This is considerably different from many other republican systems where the highest court can often test laws for constitutionality based on a single complaint of a citizen or a branch/agency of the government.
Re:Why hasn't this been shot down in the (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't necessarily agree with that judicial set-up however. It allows for a crusading judiciary or petty suits tying up the system. (Can you imagine if corproations were able to challenge any law they wanted to? It would make the post-colonial Indian judicial system look like a model of efficiency.)
However, I think there should be a special provision in cases like this where the law itself takes any possible plantif to remove the law out of the regular judicial system by its very function.
PATRIOT is a scary, scary law.
Re:Why hasn't this been shot down in the (Score:5, Insightful)
Germany is the only other system I'm familiar with in that regard. When a law passes parliament (Bundest and Bundesrat), there's usually two ways to get the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) to rule on the law.
One way is to basically sue parliament for passing an unconstitutional law. Theoretically anybody can do this but it's usually some kind of interest group that will attempt this. Based on the merits of the case, the court will decide to hear it and make a ruling. The consequence, if the verdict is affirmative to the plaintiff's position, is usually that the law is nullified and parliament is instructed to pass a new one. This is what happened several times with the abortion law. It's important here to realize that the constitutional court does not usually say how the law should be although it might hint at some possible implementations. Specifically, the court didn't decide how abortion was to proceed in contrast to the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision.
A second way is through somewhat called a "Normenkontrollklage". The term is typical of German legalese and means literally "norm control suit". The purpose of it is to challenge whether a unit of the government has violated the constitution in its actions. If, for example, one of the house of parliament votes on a bill and that vote is invalid for whatever reason but the president of the parliament at the time of the vote determined it to be valid, a Normenkontrollklage can be filed with the constitutional court to determine if the parliament followed the rules correctly.
In the case in question two years ago, an immigration law was before the Federal Council (similar to the US Senate as it is a body representing the states). The German constitution says that all delegates of a state have to vote the same for the vote to be valid. Well, during row call, the "governor" of one of the states answered in the name of the state with yes, the deputy governor asnwers with no. The Federal Council president asks again to clarify. The governor again says yes and the deputy says something like "you know my vote on this". The Federal Council president then counted the votes of that state as yes which led to quite a stir in the council chambers. The Christian Democrats (in the opposition at that time) filed a suit with the constitutional court challenging the outcome of the vote and won. The immigration law was thus nullified and had to go through the parliamentary process again. It's now sitting in conference committee, if I remember correctly.
Re:terrorists? (Score:2, Insightful)
I hope that this anti-patriot stuff comes to Minneapolis too, if it hasn't already.
Re:Nice Legislation system you have there! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Nice Legislation system you have there! (Score:5, Insightful)
While I think that may be true sometimes, I think many times they make laws because
1. Corporations asked ($$) for them.
2. It makes them sound like they're actually doing something for us so they can get re-elected. ("I passed a new law to protect our children.")
Nullification Crisis II ? (Score:4, Informative)
read here: google search: nullification crisis [google.com]
Re:Nullification Crisis II ? (Score:5, Insightful)
In short, it's a good idea, it's a kind of check and balance that a system like democracy is known for. When legislation is passed at a time of extreme fear and anger, cooler heads prevail later on and do something to cripple the legislation. I don't know how much effect these kinds of actions will have but I do find them encouraging.
Re:Nice Legislation system you have there! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nice Legislation system you have there! (Score:5, Insightful)
Constitutional Conundrum (Score:5, Insightful)
The balance between security and freedom is a tenuous one, with increased freedom permitting greater criminal activity and increased security quashing intellectual exploration and constructive criticism. Any criticism of our government is branded un-patriotic in many places (and even unofficially in the press) and may cause arguments or fights. Would the Patriot Act II, or DSEA, allow for political opposition to become targets of investigation by the ruling party? Our intellectual freedom is one of our strengths but what will happen to American society if we start to strangle it?
There are even those who get incensed about questioning the leadership of respective parties, whether G W Bush or H R Clinton is concerned. The actions of our government of late have divided this nation moreso than any I can ever remember. We have factionalized over new attempts of the current leadership in the federal government to expand their powers to those normally resevred for wartime status. However, without a Congressional declaration of war, can these be justified? Would US citizens be forced to turn to military courts under the new DSEA legislation where appeals may not exist and due process is a formality at best?
The first Patriot Act nearly bankrupted several states and forced reductions in education, law enforcement, education, and other areas. Another one may well bankrupt these states and damage the financial strength behind many others. Kentucky released 600 prisoners, while other states have taken more drastic measures. Thus, financially, socially, legally, and intellectually, we can ill afford this new legislation.
If the federal government is going to continue to impose on the rights of the people and states behind them, it sets up some of the same fears and mentality that lead to the Civil War. Any government that instills fear in its own people while being unable to properly manage its resources inevitably collapses, like the USSR. We appear to be on track to a similar fate if we enact these bills so blindly. Even the original Patriot Act divides local governments to the points that the police chiefs are willing to buck the local government to answer to the federal one. There must be better ways to protect the people of the US from the (rare) terrorist event without subjecting us to such loss of liberty and rights.
Re:WHAT ARE YOU HIDING? (Score:5, Insightful)
The answer is: The future. Why open the door for abuse so that a future government can come along, and abuse its citizenry at will?
Only those who want to abuse others like this would even suggest such a thing.
Re:America (Score:5, Insightful)
I know lots of good Americans, and lots of Americans that oppose these laws, but there's still plenty of people in the US who need to realize that perhaps it's time to spend a bit more time worrying about having a mass murdering (see, the death penalty is considered barbaric in most of the civilized world) fascist wannabe (who have done more to take away your rights, and those of anyone unfortunate enough to be in areas under US occupation?) in the White house than trying to police the rest of the world (who, incidentally, would be much more likely to be friendly to Americans if US governments didn't keep on installing and overthrowing murderous dictators on a regular basis, depending on who they prefer today)
Zieg heil! (Score:4, Insightful)
Repressive anti-freedom legilation has its roots in liberal philosophy. America is strong because the people are empowered, not the federal government. A government only becomes strong at the expense of the people. This has always and will always be true. A strong Federal government results in a week America.
As a Libertarian leaning Republican, I strongly appose the PATRIOT Act. One only need to study the history of the events leading up to WWII and the subsequent invasion of France, to understand the problem with it.