Slashdot Mirror

+1 for good link: http://www.govtrack.us/

-0.5 for making the link unclickable by putting it in the title

Things not to put in the title: links and the first half of a sentence concluded in the body (I usually skip over the titles).

Biden's from Delaware, the credit and banking capital of the U.S. He's the one that sponsored, introduced, and rallied support for the "anti-bankruptcy" bill which caused many families to lose their homes over the last three years.

Get your facts straight. You're fingering the wrong guy. From the wikipedia:

"The increase in Republican majorities in the Senate and House after the 2004 elections breathed new life into the bill, which was introduced in its current form by the chairman of the Finance Committee, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa.[7] The bill was supported by President George W. Bush. Tom DeLay also championed the controversial legislation. The bill passed by large margins, 302-126 in the House[8] and 74-25 in the Senate[9], and was signed into law by President Bush."

The earlier version HR-833, which saw a pocket veto by Bill Clinton, was sponsored by Rep. George Gekas [R-PA]. Leading up to that, S-625 (which never became law) was sponsored by Sen. Charles Grassley [R-IA].

Under the old bill, homes were protected; under the new bill they were not.

That claim isn't true either. It's those who had their homes for shorter periods that were limited to $125,000 protection of equity under the law. Very few struggling people that have had their homes a short time have near that much equity, so most of the time that isn't a problem either.
Related wikipedia text from same bill:

"Under the new law, the homestead exemption, which allows bankruptcy filers in some states to exempt the value of their homes from creditors, is limited in various ways. If a filer acquired their home less than 1,215 days (40 months) before filing, or if they have been convicted of security law violations or been found guilty of certain crimes, they may only exempt up to $125,000 (adjusted periodically), regardless of a state's exemption allowance. Filers must also wait 730 days before they are allowed to use their state's exemptions."

Biden's from Delaware, the credit and banking capital of the U.S. He's the one that sponsored, introduced, and rallied support for the "anti-bankruptcy" bill which caused many families to lose their homes over the last three years.

Get your facts straight. You're fingering the wrong guy. From the wikipedia:

"The increase in Republican majorities in the Senate and House after the 2004 elections breathed new life into the bill, which was introduced in its current form by the chairman of the Finance Committee, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa.[7] The bill was supported by President George W. Bush. Tom DeLay also championed the controversial legislation. The bill passed by large margins, 302-126 in the House[8] and 74-25 in the Senate[9], and was signed into law by President Bush."

The earlier version HR-833, which saw a pocket veto by Bill Clinton, was sponsored by Rep. George Gekas [R-PA]. Leading up to that, S-625 (which never became law) was sponsored by Sen. Charles Grassley [R-IA].

Under the old bill, homes were protected; under the new bill they were not.

That claim isn't true either. It's those who had their homes for shorter periods that were limited to $125,000 protection of equity under the law. Very few struggling people that have had their homes a short time have near that much equity, so most of the time that isn't a problem either.
Related wikipedia text from same bill:

"Under the new law, the homestead exemption, which allows bankruptcy filers in some states to exempt the value of their homes from creditors, is limited in various ways. If a filer acquired their home less than 1,215 days (40 months) before filing, or if they have been convicted of security law violations or been found guilty of certain crimes, they may only exempt up to $125,000 (adjusted periodically), regardless of a state's exemption allowance. Filers must also wait 730 days before they are allowed to use their state's exemptions."

And how they fought John McCain's 2005 home mortgage reform bill.

Democrats retook congress in 2006.

In the Senate, you need 60 votes to pass anything. Democrats promised to filibuster the bill from even getting a vote, and so it died in committee.

Thus ends your political science lesson.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power"-- Mussolini

OK, if we are going to quote Mussolini as a great political scientist, let's extrapolate on this a bit. Who created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the true "merger of state and corporate power" in this crisis? Democrats. Who further extended this by creating the CRA? Democrats. Who expanded its mission into accusing bankers of racism ("redlining") and extorting them to make more bad loans, or else be investigated? Democrats. Who ignored warnings and blocked efforts at reform in 2003? Who killed efforts at GOP reform of the FMs in 2005? Democrats. What party was Chris Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee who took millions in lobbying money from the financial services industry and got sweetheart loan deals a member of? Democrats. What party was the guy who was boning the assistant director of Fannie Mae while he was on the House Financial Services Committee a member of? Democrats.

Funny, I see a lot of suspects that your oh-so-insightful post left out.

But don't worry. help is on the way. Barack Obama, who also got a sweetheart loan deal, will be sure critics can't speak out against him. He will define truth, just as Orwell predicted, since the media is asleep at the switch. What party is he from?

Whoever modded parent as "insightful" are all so busy slamming Fox News that you don't even know who is responsible for all of this. But don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Frank proposed the FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE REFORM ACT OF 2005 which was before the housing crisis had manifested.

Are you sure that's the right bill? He's not on the list of sponsors (who are all Republicans), and he voted against it. While we're at it, McCain authored a similar regulation in the Senate in 2005, yet he's somehow being blamed for the lack of regulations that caused the mortgage failures.

Furthermore, the housing crisis was largely a product of subprime lending. By law, F&F were prohibited from engaging in subprime lending. F&F didn't create the problem they fell victim to. F&F were engaging in legitimate lending, but they were not setup to be resilient against a national wide decline in home values.

Were prohibited. A 1999 New York Times article states:

I In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

Frank proposed the FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE REFORM ACT OF 2005 which was before the housing crisis had manifested.

Are you sure that's the right bill? He's not on the list of sponsors (who are all Republicans), and he voted against it. While we're at it, McCain authored a similar regulation in the Senate in 2005, yet he's somehow being blamed for the lack of regulations that caused the mortgage failures.

Furthermore, the housing crisis was largely a product of subprime lending. By law, F&F were prohibited from engaging in subprime lending. F&F didn't create the problem they fell victim to. F&F were engaging in legitimate lending, but they were not setup to be resilient against a national wide decline in home values.

Were prohibited. A 1999 New York Times article states:

I In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

Frank proposed the FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE REFORM ACT OF 2005 which was before the housing crisis had manifested.

Are you sure that's the right bill? He's not on the list of sponsors (who are all Republicans), and he voted against it. While we're at it, McCain authored a similar regulation in the Senate in 2005, yet he's somehow being blamed for the lack of regulations that caused the mortgage failures.

Furthermore, the housing crisis was largely a product of subprime lending. By law, F&F were prohibited from engaging in subprime lending. F&F didn't create the problem they fell victim to. F&F were engaging in legitimate lending, but they were not setup to be resilient against a national wide decline in home values.

Were prohibited. A 1999 New York Times article states:

I In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

Say what? The Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005 (which passed the house but never made it out of committee in the senate) has nothing in it regarding Barney Frank.

Sponsor:
Rep. Richard Baker [R-LA]
Cosponsors [as of 2007-01-07]
Rep. Robert Aderholt [R-AL]
Rep. James Barrett [R-SC]
Rep. Roy Blunt [R-MO]
Rep. Geoff Davis [R-KY]
Rep. Tom Feeney [R-FL]
Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick [R-PA]
Rep. Scott Garrett [R-NJ]
Rep. Paul Gillmor [R-OH]
Rep. Jeb Hensarling [R-TX]
Rep. Walter Jones [R-NC]
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R-MI]
Rep. Patrick Mchenry [R-NC]
Rep. Michael Oxley [R-OH]
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R-FL]
Rep. Paul Ryan [R-WI]
Rep. Jim Ryun [R-KS]
Rep. Christopher Shays [R-CT]
Rep. Robert Simmons [R-CT]
Rep. Frank Wolf [R-VA]

Furthermore, Barney Frank voted AGAINST this resolution in the house. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2005-547

Please, if you're going to try this sort of shenanigan, at least source yourself properly.

How to fix it?

Get this piece of legislation out of committee and just maybe we have a chance to turn this country around.

Community reinvestment act ? Oh, right.

Read the link before you post. It says some economists tried to link the CRA to the subprime collapse, but that other economists had pointed out that that particular argument is flawed for the reasons given in that section of the Wikipedia article.

[...] However, the chief executive of Countrywide Financial, the nation's largest mortgage lender, is said to have "bragged" that to approve minority applications "lenders have had to stretch the rules a bit", suggesting ...

Countrywide might not be the best source of information on that. Try The Great Pool of Money from "This American Life." The mortgage companies and brokers were attempting to provide more mortgages, and dropping requirements. I hardly think that NINA loans were required by the CRA, more that the fuckers who actually made the poor loans would like to shift the blame there.

And the final "OK" was given by ...

... Without forcing a veto vote, this bipartisan legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.

I'll be the last person to deify Bill Clinton, but it does look by the voting on that bill that a veto would have simply dropped it back on his desk, since a *very* large majority of the House and more than a majority of the Senate approved it. Blaming this all on Clinton seems to be in style for the modern conservative, though.

The version that is in force now, is one with massive democrat additions.

Don't use the pejorative ("democrat" additions) if you're trying to get a point across.

The only sure thing is that the democrat-altered bill was a disaster, and was a disaster in that the democrat additions massively created something called "subprime" loans ... hmmm ...

To quote wikipedia on the origin of subprime lending: "Subprime lending evolved with the realization of a demand in the marketplace and businesses providing a supply to meet it coupled with the relaxation of usury laws." Doesn't seem to mention this bill, at all. This situation is a bit more complicated that "teh government made us loan money to poor people! give us money!"

We could also just assume common sense is correct ... lending to people without income (or far, far above their income) is ... well ... bad business (now there's a great insight ! It's bad for both the loaners, who lose their house, and for banks, who lose their money). And if this causes some population groups to get less loans ...

The issue is that lenders decided that they needed more and more loans to sell to other banks, and decided (against what you correctly refer to as "common sense") to start lowering the bar on criteria for loans all the way to the NINA loans which virtually *guaranteed* foreclosures would result.

Maybe I should repeat that ... we should MEDDLE LESS. That was equally clear before all the recessions we've ever known so this probably justifies another few repeats ...

I'm guessing right now I'll be branded racist. Oh well. I didn't cause the subprime crisis. What really caused the subprime crisis is simple :

"positive discrimiation" (specifically rubber-stamping "minority" loan applications, followed by rubber-stamping of (nearly) ALL loan applications)

Yeah, minority loans, that's the ticket. Poor *white* people didn't take out NINA loans the same way poor black and hispanic people did. We s

Joe Lieberman and his staff have been actively censoring youtube under the guise of Senate Bill 1959: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 since May. The bill hasn't passed the Senate yet, but it hasn't stopped Lieberman from pressuring google to delete any video and accounts he wants.

This video describes what is going on pretty well.

This veteran gives Lieberman a piece of his mind on the issue.

MIT has been trying to track down what videos are being taken down and why.
http://youtomb.mit.edu/

First lasers then shark "conservation"... Soon... Very soon... http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-5741

This is a Canadian college, so it's the CRIA that they have to deal with... though it's not like there's much different between them.

I have an idea for a great project that the article submitter could do, it would be great at any college. Most especially any college in the US. In fact I would like to thank the RIAA for essentially proposing the idea, and in fact having it passed into law here in the US.

H.R. 4137: College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2008, signed into law on Aug 14 2008, and mentioned here on Slashdot a few days earlier, contains the following requirement:

(29) The institution certifies that the institution--
(A) has developed plans to effectively combat the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material, including through the use of a variety of technology-based deterrents; and
(B) will, to the extent practicable, offer alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property, as determined by the institution in consultation with the chief technology officer or other designated officer of the institution.

I think it is in fact a FANTASTIC idea for colleges to "offer alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property". There are a multitude of sources across the internet for Creative Commons or other 100% legal music. I think you (and any other college) should set up a hosting site on your internal network. A huge easy repository of hundreds of gigs of 100% legal 100% non-RIAA 100% non-CRIA music. They want colleges to offer an alternative to the illegal downloading of their music? I say we damn well give them exactly what they want. The most effective way for a college to deter illegal downloads is to drown students in an overwhelming more-than-you-can-eat supply of legal downloads. Trying to block students from illegal downloads is a largely hopeless task because students are going to find ways to circumvent those blocks to get what they want. But if you get students hooked on more-than-you-can-eat legal music downloads, that is the most effective way to reduce or eliminate the desire for RIAA-music downloads. For any college in the US, I suggest this is the best and most effective way to comply with the law. If you are in Canada or anywhere else, I still say it's a great way to get a jump on things before the RIAA-CRIA-or-other-clone comes knocking. You can tell them that you already have an official school policy and program in place to minimize the downloading - illegal or otherwise - of their music.

The simplest system is just to have a basic server on the campus network hosting all of these files, but there are endless ways you can expand and improve upon that service and build a powerful community interest in it. You could have some sort of streaming service. You could have individual student accounts with some mechanism of tracking individual "collections" of the songs they like and playlists and maybe personal ratings of songs. You can have some simple way for students to recommend and "share" these songs with each other. You could set up some sort of streaming "radio channels", and maybe even a way for students to run "radio channels". You could use the data on student music collections or song rankings to to do intelligent recommendations of other songs they may like.

You can do something as simple as a minimalistic webserver just hosting the files, or you can build it as big and as advanced as you like. By having this on the campus internal network you cut down on external ISP bandwidth needs.

Oh, and the best part? Getting to bask in the delicious irony of giving the RIAA&friends exactly what they asked for with a big fat FUCK-YOU-UP-THE-ASS-SIDEWAYS-WITH-A-PING-PONG-PADDLE.

-

In the U.S. we call thought crime "HR 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007."

`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.

What this bill does is set up a commission to decide what speech is terrorism and what isn't. During hearings for this bill they showed examples of this supposed homegrown terrorism. In between different Al-Qaeda websites, they showed Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. Even if you don't agree with them, I doubt anyone would believe that asking questions makes you a homegrown terrorist. This bill was passed through the house 404-6 and has yet to be debated in the Senate.

In the U.S. we call thought crime "HR 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007."

`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.

What this bill does is set up a commission to decide what speech is terrorism and what isn't. During hearings for this bill they showed examples of this supposed homegrown terrorism. In between different Al-Qaeda websites, they showed Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. Even if you don't agree with them, I doubt anyone would believe that asking questions makes you a homegrown terrorist. This bill was passed through the house 404-6 and has yet to be debated in the Senate.

"College Opportunity and Affordability Act"

You gotta love the humor of conservative lobbyists. "Opportunity" to "act" to reduce the "affordability" of your "college" tuition by hiring a guy to play whack-a-mole with your P2P ports "and" write reports about it?

Umm, I suggest you look a little more deeply into the history of the bill and Hollywood in Congress.

• The Hollywood music and movie industries give more money to Democrats than Republicans by a more than 2:1 margin.
• The bill, with sec 494, was introduced and sponsored by by George Miller (D-CA) and 29 other Democrats.
• The House version (which introduced the offensive section) passed with Democratss voting 219-0 in favor, Republicans voting 135-58 in favor.
• The combined Sen/House version passed the House with Dems voting 234-0 in favor, Reps voting 146-49 in favor.
• The combined Sen/House version passed the Senate with Dems voting 45-0 in favor, Reps voting 36-8 in favor.

But since it's bad, of course it must be the product of a conservative agenda. The Democrats can do no evil, right?

"College Opportunity and Affordability Act"

You gotta love the humor of conservative lobbyists. "Opportunity" to "act" to reduce the "affordability" of your "college" tuition by hiring a guy to play whack-a-mole with your P2P ports "and" write reports about it?

Umm, I suggest you look a little more deeply into the history of the bill and Hollywood in Congress.

• The Hollywood music and movie industries give more money to Democrats than Republicans by a more than 2:1 margin.
• The bill, with sec 494, was introduced and sponsored by by George Miller (D-CA) and 29 other Democrats.
• The House version (which introduced the offensive section) passed with Democratss voting 219-0 in favor, Republicans voting 135-58 in favor.
• The combined Sen/House version passed the House with Dems voting 234-0 in favor, Reps voting 146-49 in favor.
• The combined Sen/House version passed the Senate with Dems voting 45-0 in favor, Reps voting 36-8 in favor.

But since it's bad, of course it must be the product of a conservative agenda. The Democrats can do no evil, right?

"College Opportunity and Affordability Act"

You gotta love the humor of conservative lobbyists. "Opportunity" to "act" to reduce the "affordability" of your "college" tuition by hiring a guy to play whack-a-mole with your P2P ports "and" write reports about it?

Umm, I suggest you look a little more deeply into the history of the bill and Hollywood in Congress.

• The Hollywood music and movie industries give more money to Democrats than Republicans by a more than 2:1 margin.
• The bill, with sec 494, was introduced and sponsored by by George Miller (D-CA) and 29 other Democrats.
• The House version (which introduced the offensive section) passed with Democratss voting 219-0 in favor, Republicans voting 135-58 in favor.
• The combined Sen/House version passed the House with Dems voting 234-0 in favor, Reps voting 146-49 in favor.
• The combined Sen/House version passed the Senate with Dems voting 45-0 in favor, Reps voting 36-8 in favor.

But since it's bad, of course it must be the product of a conservative agenda. The Democrats can do no evil, right?

Step 1:

Go here: http://www.govtrack.us/

Step 2:

See if your Senator voted in favor of this bill.

Step 3:

Notify your Senator that you'll be voting for his opponent the next time he's up for re-election.

On a sidenote, this is why earmarking legislation is a major problem. Corrupt legislators know they can smuggle crap that would NEVER pass in a million years, if they hide it in a bill that has otherwise good intentions. It's one of the few things drawing me to voting for McCain, since he's one of the more outspoken people about this particular practice.

It's not premature.

Search for ADJOURNMENT at govtrack.us and you'll see when Congress passes motions to adjourn.

Only looking at the ones during the summer for House/Senate:

Jun 29, 2006/Aug 4, 2006
Jun 28, 2007/Aug 4, 2007
Jun 26, 2008/Aug 1, 2008 (Senate isn't listed here yet)

It looks like a pretty damn standard time to adjourn.

If was was going to do something illegal that required your cooperation and I already had a vehicle to enable my activities in that by a law, you could do something for me that helped, I wouldn't risk that by telling your I'm breaking the law. Instead, I would keep you in the dark and keep you participating on your own free will according to the law. I think the telecoms are in the same boat and no amount of evidence to this date has shown otherwise

Ignorance is not a defense. If one unknowingly commits a crime, that fact might play a role in the sentencing but it does NOT affect the verdict of the appropriate charge.

You really need to read that law again. section d says "a complete defense against any civil or criminal action brought under this chapter or any other law" That means they can't be held over those event for any law, even laws providing recourse for TOS violations.

Again, IANAL, but as I understand it, contract law is completely separate from criminal law and, in most cases, isn't codified by any legislative body and thus any formal "laws" but rather established through precedent and English Common Law standards. Furthermore, drawing the line between actions directly resultant from the wiretap request and unrelated ones isn't necessarily a simple matter. Imagine for a second if wiretapped lines were less-reliable resulting in serious injury or death (a la the OnStar wiretapping case) or if the Telecom companies started falsely billing the affected customers to cover the unpaid expenses of wiretapping. Would such actions be covered by this complete defense? Probably not. But the effective blank check that is this new "updated" FISA bill basically ignores any of these ambiguities and potential abuses which might have actually happened (nobody knows--"national secrets", of course) and lets them off the hook.

Actually, this statement shows that you simply aren't paying attention to the situation or even what I wrote nor have you examined the immunity bill. The government classified the documents as state secretes. The telecoms can't bring them up without facing jail time and damaging national security.

Did you read it? Are you paying attention? Or are you just unthinkingly repeating the Republican party's public justification verbatim? The actual text of the bill says nothing about establishing the government's role in their civil defense. It merely grants the Telecommunications companies complete immunity so long as the Attorney General verifies that it is related to the TSP and that everything is kosher, according to the Administration (because we all know, they don't have a stake in this...).

But more than that, the notion that bombshell, vitally important national security information was potentially going to be released from these cases is patently absurd. Many of these litigants know for a fact that they were under surveillance and exactly to what extent. There was a case where the wiretap transcripts were accidentally mailed to the person under surveillance. Another litigant put two and two together when dumbass FBI agents started referencing specifics of the content of phone conversations during interviews. What exactly is the argument here? What, specifically, is the worst that could happen? You think Al Qaeda operatives don't already know their phonecalls are probably being monitored?

I also think your fine with this premise but don't like it because you can't find more out about the TSP which is wrong in and of itself. This law is not retroactive immunity. It is a vehicle that allows the existing immunity to take place while protecting national security secrets. Look at the situation as a whole. Look at the law and what it does, it is very clear in that respect and I support that intent.

Here are just a few highlights from Barack Obama's career as a US Senator: specific pieces of legislation, what they meant and how they were passed.

The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act

Introduced by Sen. John McCain in May 2005, and cosponsored by Sen. Edward Kennedy. Barack Obama added three amendments to this bill.

While the bill was never voted on in the Senate, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Acts of 2006 and 2007, respectively, drew heavily upon the wording of this bill.

The Lugar-Obama Cooperative Threat Reduction.

Introduced by Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Dick Lugar and Sen. Tom Coburn.

First introduced in November 2005 and enacted in 2007, this bill expanded upon the successful Nunn-Lugar threat reduction, which helped secure weapons of mass destruction and related infrastructure in former Soviet Union states.

Lugar-Obama expanded this nonproliferation program to conventional weapons -- including shoulder-fired rockets and land mines. When the bill received $48 million in funding, Obama said, "This funding will further strengthen our ability to detect and intercept illegal shipments of weapons and materials of mass destruction, enhancing efforts to prevent nuclear terrorism."

Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006

This act of Congress, introduced by Senators Obama and Coburn, required the full disclosure of all entities or organizations receiving federal funds in FY2007.

Despite a "secret hold" on this bill by Senators Ted Stevens and Robert Byrd, the act passed into law and was signed by President Bush. The act had 43 cosponsors, including John McCain.

The act created this Web site, which provides citizens with valuable information about government-funded programs.

Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act

This law helped specify US policy toward the Congo, and states that the US should work with other donor nations to increase international contributions to the African nation.

The bill marked the first federal legislation to be enacted with Obama as its primary sponsor. Following this legislation's passage, Obama toured Africa, traveling to South Africa, Kenya, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Chad. He spoke forcefully against ethnic rivalries and political corruption in Kenya.

Honest Leadership and Open Government Act

In the first month of the 110th Congress, Obama worked with Sen. Russ Feingold to pass this law, which amends and strengthens the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.

Specificially, the changes made by Obama and Feingold requires public disclosure of lobbying activity and funding, places more restrictions on gifts for members of Congress and their staff, and provides for mandatory disclosure of earmarks in expenditure bills.

The House passed the bill, 411-8, on July 31. The Senate approved it, 83-14, on Aug. 2. At the time, Obama called it "the most sweeping ethics reform since Watergate."

Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act

Following the Republican-sponsored voter intimidation tactics seen in mostly black counties in Maryland during the 2006 midterm elections, Obama worked with Sen. Chuck Schumer to introduce this bill.

The bill has been referred to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Obama said of the bill, "This legislation would ensure that for the first time, these incidents are fully investigated and that those found guilty are punished."

Further notes:

• McCain didn't vote because he wasn't there. He has publicly supported telecom immunity is recent days, however, so it's safe to say he would have voted for it.
• While Clinton voted against it this time, she didn't bother to show up to vote when this came up earlier this year (to vote on the bill or to help with the filibuster). It still potentially speaks well of her that she was against this, but apparently she wouldn't stand up for it when it was really politically dangerous.
• As for Obama, last time around he spoke out against it and voted to against cloture (i.e., to filibuster). He didn't show up to vote on the bill itself, but it's fair to say that that vote was probably seen to be a foregone conclusion (I'd still have rather he did vote, but it was a primary election day). This time he voted for cloture (i.e., against a filibuster). He did vote for various amendments to limit or strip the immunity provisions, but they all failed, and he voted for the final bill with immunity. It was well known he was going to do this but I, for one, am still quite disappointed.

Official House Roll Call for H R 6304
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml

Breakdown of votes by state, representative, etc.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-437

Text of the House bill, see section 802.f:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6304

EFF analysis of the immunity portion of the bill:

http://www.eff.org/files/AnalysisHR6304-v5.pdf

Title II of H.R. 6304 is in substance the same as the original telecom immunity provisions of S. 2248, with only a few inconsequential changes. Most critically, it still prevents the court from ruling on the legality of the telecomsâ(TM) assistance in warrantless surveillance.

This may not be immediately evident on first read since the structure has changed considerably: the provisions for so-called "retroactive" immunity in the original billâ(TM)s Section 202 have been combined with the so-called "prospective" immunity from the original Section 203.

But the substance of this unconstitutional bill is still the same:

Cases Will Still Be Dismissed Based On A Permission Slip From The President.

As before, cases against telecoms that provided assistance "in connection with" (p. 89:20) the Presidentâ(TM)s warrantless surveillance program âoeshall be promptly dismissedâ (p. 89:2) so long as the AG certifies to the court that they got a piece of paper "indicating" (p.90:10) that the surveillance was "authorized by the President ... and ... determined to be lawful" (p. 90:12-13), i.e., the piece of paper that we already know they got, based on the Senate Intelligence Committee's Report.

Thank you very much for convincing me to write. I haven't posted to slashdot or (even more rarely) written a congressperson in years! Here's my letter I submitted via that link to my two senators in my state:

Honorable Senator last_name,

Please vote No for H.R. 4279: Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008, if it encourages seizing personal property suspected of infringing copyright.

Here are supporting quotes I find insightful, from http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/11/0213244&threshold=5&mode=nested :

1. " '(B) The forfeiture of property under subparagraph (A), including any seizure and disposition of the property and any related judicial or administrative proceeding, shall be governed by the procedures set forth in section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853)'

So just like in drug cases, you don't even have to be convicted of a crime - you lose your property based on an accusation. Think of it as a DMCA notice that not only takes down your site, but also has a bunch of jack-booted thugs coming and seizing all your stuff.

Maybe they will pursue a conviction and maybe not. If you want your stuff back, you have to put up a bond equal to the value of the stuff that was taken, sue the federal government, and prove your innocence. Good luck with that."

2. "Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) suggested Tuesday that people who download copyright materials from the Internet should have their computers automatically destroyed.

But Hatch himself is using unlicensed software on his official website, which presumably would qualify his computer to be smoked by the system he proposes."

3. "Shouldn't they be prioritizing protecting the constitution (which forbids unreasonable search and seizure) to the 'highest level of our government' "

Please consider how works could be expired sooner into the public domain. Why "Happy Birthday To You" still deserves to be copyrighted is beyond me.

Thank you,
name, 27 years old, software engineer
address
phone

bill consulted:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-4279

Here's the roll call on the vote.

So the democrats in control of the house are basically in Satan's personal employment ?

Not that I entirely disagree, but this seems a bit strong, even for them.

Here's the roll call :

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-300

Here's the (short) list of "No" voters :
Nay CA-4 Doolittle, John [R]
Nay TN-2 Duncan, John [R]
Nay AZ-6 Flake, Jeff [R]
Nay TX-14 Paul, Ronald [R]
Nay TX-2 Poe, Ted [R]
Nay GA-3 Westmoreland, Lynn [R]
Nay AK-0 Young, Donald [R]
Nay VA-9 Boucher, Frederick [D]
Nay OH-10 Kucinich, Dennis [D]
Nay CA-16 Lofgren, Zoe [D]
Nay WI-4 Moore, Gwen [D]

Barack Obama didn't vote, but all the IL guys voted "Aye"

John McCain didn't vote either, but one (out of 4) of his Arizona colleagues voted "Nay". The democratic candidate for Arizona votes "Aye"

Thought this was worth mentioning.

People get the Government they deserve.

(Please note, the quote does not say "a person gets").

You need to be involved. Check your Congressman's vote:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-300

Write him if you don't like it (or if you did). I'm proud to say Ron Paul of TX voted Nay.

Ron Paul. There were actually 3 sets of votes, the 414-1 was the 3rd (the one in May), but there were two in April.

Of the two in April, the one in the house had 3 nays: Jeff Flake, Ron Paul, and Edward Royce.

On May 1, Royce and Flake voted Yay, and Paul voted Nay. (As opposed to Royce/Flake just not voting).

You are giving numbers for the original 2001 bill.

The numbers I gave are for the 2005 REAUTHORIZATION, as indicated in the first sentence of my post where I stated "Yes, the Senate approved the reauthorization unanimously."

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll414.xml

Jul 29, 2005: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each representative's position was not kept. (This link then goes on to give the exact same numbers I gave for the House)

Perhaps you could read other people's posts a little better before you accuse them of being "wrong on all counts" and obtaining figures by having "pulled them all out of your ass".

You're thinking of the Senate, which was indeed 98-1, with the one being Russ Feingold. In the House it was 357-66. The 66 Nays included three Republicans and one Independent.

You're thinking of the Senate, which was indeed 98-1, with the one being Russ Feingold. In the House it was 357-66. The 66 Nays included three Republicans and one Independent.

Here's The Fine Bill, as can be found if you follow enough links, and here's the entry for it on the THOMAS web site at the Library of Congress. Please read before commenting on the bill. In particular, note that:

• the word "totalitarian" doesn't appear in the bill, just "authoritarian";
• the President of the US determines what countries are "Internet-restricting countries" (fat chance that this would include the US or any of the US's friends);
• the forms of censorship, etc. it affects are providing personally identifiable information to "Internet-restricting countries", filtering search results at the request of "Internet-restricting countries", and "jamming" "United States-supporting content" (government sites and the like) in "Internet-restricting countries";
• the bill doesn't affect whether you can help any country other than an "Internet-restricting country" to censor the Intarweb,

This showed up a little bit late. The bill failed to pass 239-178 with 14 not voting. While this is a 55% vote in favor, it required a 2/3 supermajority to pass due to a motion to suspend the rules.

(I am posting this in response to all +5 moderated incorrect information about Posse Comitatus, because it is a very important issue.)

-----

The changes made in the 2007 Defense Appropriations act have been repealed in their entirety by H.R. 4986: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 :

Full text of the relevant section:

SEC. 1068. REPEAL OF PROVISIONS IN SECTION 1076 OF PUBLIC LAW 109-364 RELATING TO USE OF ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.

(a) Interference With State and Federal Laws-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 333. Interference with State and Federal law

`The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it--

`(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

`(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.'.

(2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE- Section 334 of such title is amended by striking `or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws' after `insurgents'.

(3) HEADING AMENDMENT- The heading of chapter 15 of such title is amended to read as follows:

`CHAPTER 15--INSURRECTION'.

(4) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS-

(A) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 333 and inserting the following new item:

`333. Interference with State and Federal law.'.

(B) The tables of chapters at the beginning of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code, and at the beginning of part I of such subtitle, are each amended by striking the item relating to chapter 15 and inserting the following new item:

331'.

(b) Repeal of Section Relating to Provision of Supplies, Services, and Equipment-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 2567 of title 10, United States Code, is repealed.

(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 152 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 2567.

(c) Conforming Amendment- Section 12304(c) of such title is amended by striking `Except to perform' and all that follows through `this section' and inserting `No unit or member of a reserve component may be ordered to active duty under this section to perform any of the functions authorized by chapter 15 or section 12406 of this title or, except as provided in subsection (b),'.

(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

-----

For the sake of completeness:

It is a common misunderstanding that the 2007 Defense Appropriations act modified what is commonly known as the "Insurrection Act", codified in 10 USC 331-335, to allow the President to arbitrarily declare an "emergency", and impose martial law at will. However, the changes were actually much more benign and restrictive, at least compared to the existing 200-year-old law. The relevant portion of the current code is:

(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--
(A) restore public order and enforce the

(I am posting this in response to all +5 moderated incorrect information about Posse Comitatus, because it is a very important issue.)

-----

The changes made in the 2007 Defense Appropriations act have been repealed in their entirety by H.R. 4986: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 :

Full text of the relevant section:

SEC. 1068. REPEAL OF PROVISIONS IN SECTION 1076 OF PUBLIC LAW 109-364 RELATING TO USE OF ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.

(a) Interference With State and Federal Laws-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 333. Interference with State and Federal law

`The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it--

`(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

`(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.'.

(2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE- Section 334 of such title is amended by striking `or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws' after `insurgents'.

(3) HEADING AMENDMENT- The heading of chapter 15 of such title is amended to read as follows:

`CHAPTER 15--INSURRECTION'.

(4) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS-

(A) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 333 and inserting the following new item:

`333. Interference with State and Federal law.'.

(B) The tables of chapters at the beginning of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code, and at the beginning of part I of such subtitle, are each amended by striking the item relating to chapter 15 and inserting the following new item:

331'.

(b) Repeal of Section Relating to Provision of Supplies, Services, and Equipment-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 2567 of title 10, United States Code, is repealed.

(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 152 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 2567.

(c) Conforming Amendment- Section 12304(c) of such title is amended by striking `Except to perform' and all that follows through `this section' and inserting `No unit or member of a reserve component may be ordered to active duty under this section to perform any of the functions authorized by chapter 15 or section 12406 of this title or, except as provided in subsection (b),'.

(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

-----

For the sake of completeness:

It is a common misunderstanding that the 2007 Defense Appropriations act modified what is commonly known as the "Insurrection Act", codified in 10 USC 331-335, to allow the President to arbitrarily declare an "emergency", and impose martial law at will. However, the changes were actually much more benign and restrictive, at least compared to the existing 200-year-old law. The relevant portion of the current code is:

(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--
(A) restore public order and enforce the

(I am posting this in response to all +5 moderated incorrect information about Posse Comitatus, because it is a very important issue. I would appreciate a direct response from each poster, but doubt I will get one.)

-----

First of all, the changes made in the 2007 Defense Appropriations act have been repealed in their entirety by H.R. 4986: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 :

Full text of the relevant section:

SEC. 1068. REPEAL OF PROVISIONS IN SECTION 1076 OF PUBLIC LAW 109-364 RELATING TO USE OF ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.

(a) Interference With State and Federal Laws-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 333. Interference with State and Federal law

`The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it--

`(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

`(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.'.

(2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE- Section 334 of such title is amended by striking `or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws' after `insurgents'.

(3) HEADING AMENDMENT- The heading of chapter 15 of such title is amended to read as follows:

`CHAPTER 15--INSURRECTION'.

(4) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS-

(A) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 333 and inserting the following new item:

`333. Interference with State and Federal law.'.

(B) The tables of chapters at the beginning of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code, and at the beginning of part I of such subtitle, are each amended by striking the item relating to chapter 15 and inserting the following new item:

331'.

(b) Repeal of Section Relating to Provision of Supplies, Services, and Equipment-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 2567 of title 10, United States Code, is repealed.

(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 152 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 2567.

(c) Conforming Amendment- Section 12304(c) of such title is amended by striking `Except to perform' and all that follows through `this section' and inserting `No unit or member of a reserve component may be ordered to active duty under this section to perform any of the functions authorized by chapter 15 or section 12406 of this title or, except as provided in subsection (b),'.

(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

-----

For the sake of completeness:

It is a common misunderstanding that the 2007 Defense Appropriations act modified what is commonly known as the "Insurrection Act", codified in 10 USC 331-335, to allow the President to arbitrarily declare an "emergency", and impose martial law at will. However, the changes were actually much more benign and restrictive, at least compared to the existing 200-year-old law. The relevant portion of the current code is:

(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including

(I am posting this in response to all +5 moderated incorrect information about Posse Comitatus, because it is a very important issue. I would appreciate a direct response from each poster, but doubt I will get one.)

-----

First of all, the changes made in the 2007 Defense Appropriations act have been repealed in their entirety by H.R. 4986: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 :

Full text of the relevant section:

SEC. 1068. REPEAL OF PROVISIONS IN SECTION 1076 OF PUBLIC LAW 109-364 RELATING TO USE OF ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.

(a) Interference With State and Federal Laws-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 333. Interference with State and Federal law

`The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it--

`(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

`(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.'.

(2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE- Section 334 of such title is amended by striking `or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws' after `insurgents'.

(3) HEADING AMENDMENT- The heading of chapter 15 of such title is amended to read as follows:

`CHAPTER 15--INSURRECTION'.

(4) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS-

(A) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 333 and inserting the following new item:

`333. Interference with State and Federal law.'.

(B) The tables of chapters at the beginning of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code, and at the beginning of part I of such subtitle, are each amended by striking the item relating to chapter 15 and inserting the following new item:

331'.

(b) Repeal of Section Relating to Provision of Supplies, Services, and Equipment-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 2567 of title 10, United States Code, is repealed.

(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 152 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 2567.

(c) Conforming Amendment- Section 12304(c) of such title is amended by striking `Except to perform' and all that follows through `this section' and inserting `No unit or member of a reserve component may be ordered to active duty under this section to perform any of the functions authorized by chapter 15 or section 12406 of this title or, except as provided in subsection (b),'.

(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

-----

For the sake of completeness:

It is a common misunderstanding that the 2007 Defense Appropriations act modified what is commonly known as the "Insurrection Act", codified in 10 USC 331-335, to allow the President to arbitrarily declare an "emergency", and impose martial law at will. However, the changes were actually much more benign and restrictive, at least compared to the existing 200-year-old law. The relevant portion of the current code is:

(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including

(I am posting this in response to all +5 moderated incorrect information about Posse Comitatus, because it is a very important issue. I would appreciate a direct response from each poster, but doubt I will get one.)

-----

First of all, the changes made in the 2007 Defense Appropriations act have been repealed in their entirety by H.R. 4986: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 :

Full text of the relevant section:

SEC. 1068. REPEAL OF PROVISIONS IN SECTION 1076 OF PUBLIC LAW 109-364 RELATING TO USE OF ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.

(a) Interference With State and Federal Laws-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 333. Interference with State and Federal law

`The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it--

`(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

`(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.'.

(2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE- Section 334 of such title is amended by striking `or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws' after `insurgents'.

(3) HEADING AMENDMENT- The heading of chapter 15 of such title is amended to read as follows:

`CHAPTER 15--INSURRECTION'.

(4) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS-

(A) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 333 and inserting the following new item:

`333. Interference with State and Federal law.'.

(B) The tables of chapters at the beginning of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code, and at the beginning of part I of such subtitle, are each amended by striking the item relating to chapter 15 and inserting the following new item:

331'.

(b) Repeal of Section Relating to Provision of Supplies, Services, and Equipment-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 2567 of title 10, United States Code, is repealed.

(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 152 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 2567.

(c) Conforming Amendment- Section 12304(c) of such title is amended by striking `Except to perform' and all that follows through `this section' and inserting `No unit or member of a reserve component may be ordered to active duty under this section to perform any of the functions authorized by chapter 15 or section 12406 of this title or, except as provided in subsection (b),'.

(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

-----

For the sake of completeness:

It is a common misunderstanding that the 2007 Defense Appropriations act modified what is commonly known as the "Insurrection Act", codified in 10 USC 331-335, to allow the President to arbitrarily declare an "emergency", and impose martial law at will. However, the changes were actually much more benign and restrictive, at least compared to the existing 200-year-old law. The relevant portion of the current code is:

(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including

(I am posting this in response to all +5 moderated incorrect information about Posse Comitatus, because it is a very important issue. I would appreciate a direct response from each poster, but doubt I will get one.)

-----

First of all, the changes made in the 2007 Defense Appropriations act have been repealed in their entirety by H.R. 4986: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 :

Full text of the relevant section:

SEC. 1068. REPEAL OF PROVISIONS IN SECTION 1076 OF PUBLIC LAW 109-364 RELATING TO USE OF ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.

(a) Interference With State and Federal Laws-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 333. Interference with State and Federal law

`The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it--

`(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

`(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.'.

(2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE- Section 334 of such title is amended by striking `or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws' after `insurgents'.

(3) HEADING AMENDMENT- The heading of chapter 15 of such title is amended to read as follows:

`CHAPTER 15--INSURRECTION'.

(4) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS-

(A) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 333 and inserting the following new item:

`333. Interference with State and Federal law.'.

(B) The tables of chapters at the beginning of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code, and at the beginning of part I of such subtitle, are each amended by striking the item relating to chapter 15 and inserting the following new item:

331'.

(b) Repeal of Section Relating to Provision of Supplies, Services, and Equipment-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 2567 of title 10, United States Code, is repealed.

(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 152 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 2567.

(c) Conforming Amendment- Section 12304(c) of such title is amended by striking `Except to perform' and all that follows through `this section' and inserting `No unit or member of a reserve component may be ordered to active duty under this section to perform any of the functions authorized by chapter 15 or section 12406 of this title or, except as provided in subsection (b),'.

(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

-----

For the sake of completeness:

It is a common misunderstanding that the 2007 Defense Appropriations act modified what is commonly known as the "Insurrection Act", codified in 10 USC 331-335, to allow the President to arbitrarily declare an "emergency", and impose martial law at will. However, the changes were actually much more benign and restrictive, at least compared to the existing 200-year-old law. The relevant portion of the current code is:

(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including

"And here are Senator Leahy's remarks on the Senate floor about this Act, which has since been passed and signed into law. The first paragraph is all you really need to read:

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906b.html"

From http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-5122

"Sep 30, 2006: After passing both the Senate and House, a conference committee is created to work out differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill. A conference report resolving those differences passed in the Senate, paving the way for enactment of the bill, by Unanimous Consent. A record of each representative's position was not kept."

So he thought that part of the bill was awful, but not awful enough for him to do anything about besides make speeches? Real moral bravery there.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-145

Take a look at this map of California's 12th congressional district.

I'd say that Lessig is living amidst his largest "base of support." If anyone is going to understand and champion his cause, it's the folks in the Silicon Valley area.

The amendments - with who submitted them - are here

The amendments - with who submitted them - are here

For those of you asleep at the wheel, the PATRIOT act was re-authorized in March of 2006, at which time Obama voted for it.

Besides, he does lots of speeches in the house, and he does introduce lots of bills, way more than congressmen average. (They are mostly repeals though so they never pass.)
(introduced last year)