Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Patriot Act Movement Expands
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."
the Native Americans have a treaty to grow hemp. It wasn't a law (although it should have been considered so)...
Sorry.
It is my understanding that the Supreme Court can't shoot it down unless there is a case presented to it that came to it through the appeals process. I don't believe they can dismiss any law as unconstitutional until it is challenged; I may be wrong though.
[ ]
The text of the Act is here, and there are explanations in regular English here and here.
I produce electronic music and write little games. Have a look.
The 10th Amendment has been ignored by the Feds for at least the last 140 years. Hell, it goes back to the Whiskey Rebellion if you want to go that far back. Even with all of the other erosions of the Bill of Rights, the 10th has been the most decimated by all three branches of the Federal Government. The state is supposed to be stronger than the federal so that we could have a diversity in laws with which to experiment. This is not the case any more. With the way that the 4th Amendment has been positively raped over the years by no knock warrents, confiscation laws in which a person can have their house seized by the police in a drug investigation even if no drugs are found and all charges are dropped I find it as no suprise that someone finally got around to nullifying it in it's entirety. Dok
"You can't screw the system, but you can give it a good fondling." -- Too lazy to look it up
Indeed, the feds don't care about state marijuana laws and people and groups have been busted despite thinking they were safe. The Oakland Cannibas Club is one such victim. However, it's not entirely useless to pass these laws: most small-time breakers of such laws are busted by local cops. In fact, though I know many, many people who've paid fines and even gone to jail for pot possesion/ distribution- I don't know a single one who was busted by feds.
Check out the Free State Project if you feel that states/cities should be able to exclusively govern their own wherever the "crime" doesn't cross jurisdictions. Definately check the project out if you think your government should do little more than protecting citizens from assault.
The state does not even print money anymore. It's all printed by the Federal Reserve, a privately owned corporation run by 12 banks that the government can't even legally buy stocks in. It has never been audited, and does not even provide a means for paying off the principle on the National Debt. As far as the money thing is concerned we've been screwed since 1918 with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act. Dok
"You can't screw the system, but you can give it a good fondling." -- Too lazy to look it up
It's not just that they can find out what you checked out -- it's that you won't ever be told. When that federal agent hands that librarian the order (which isn't signed by any judge, by the way, it's the agency's discretion whether the order should be executed) to hand over the library's records because there's a suspected terrorist cell or whatever excuse they come up with, she or he is placed under a gag order. They can't even tell their bosses, let alone you. the only recourse that librarian has is a lawyer, which she had damn well better avail herself of, because if the FBI does in turn use that information the patron can still sue her for releasing that information. But if they don't then the libary board, the head librarian, and the patrons who had their reading lists snooped through will never know.
Yeah, the 9th has been hit pretty damned hard, but when you look at the fact that almost every single federal law on the books undermines the 10th by overriding state sovereignty, the 10th looks a little like goatse man. Dok
"You can't screw the system, but you can give it a good fondling." -- Too lazy to look it up
Yeah, how dare that bastard not allow a few states to commoditize human beings. Remember, the FIRST law the newly established CSA passed was a piece of legislature barring any member state from banning slavery. States' rights indeed.
read here: google search: nullification crisis
actually, the 10th goes back further than the whiskey rebellion, all the way back to the original conception of the Constitution.
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.
YOU SUCK BALLS!
Slavery was not what the war was fought over. It was only a tactical issue; Lincoln freed the slaves ONLY in confederate states; he specifically did NOT free them in Union states that allowed slavery. he did this, by his own admission, in the hopes that the slaves would revolt in the south.
The winner gets to write the history books.
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
Well if everybody believed that, it would almost be true, no? In matter of fact, you're 100% wrong. Congress basically has the right to tax us, regulate interstate commerce, regulate immigration, coin money, deliver mail, grant copyrights, raise an army, and a few other less interesting things. Outside of that, everything else belongs to the states. I'll just quote the relevant parts of the Constitution:
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.
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 is one of many legislative and privacy issues that they address.
The July 4th weekend may be a good time to think about the USA PATRIOT act, argues the SJMC. Declan McCullagh offers his thoughts on the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 AKA PATRIOT Act II. You can also read EPIC's view of the DSEA 2003 and the original USA PATRIOT Act. They also have links to the text of the legislation and other info.
Slavery was not what the war was fought over.
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, but slavery played an integral role in getting them there.
-Eyston
The 10th Amendment has been all but emasculated by a rather liberal interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
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.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
The states can still leave the Union when they want. I wonder if any legislators remember this part of the Constitution?
Good Grief. - Charles Brown
Then why did leaders in the south itself argue that the war was over slavery? Slashdot's servers aren't large enough to hold all the speeches, quotes, and letters made by southern politicians to that effect. The south did not argue only that they should be allowed to own slaves in the south, but that laws against owning slaves in northern states were unconstitutional and that they should be allowed to expand the institution into new states.
Lincoln's political moves regarding slavery were a reflection in part on his need to keep the north unified at a time when, for instance, Irish immigrants in NYC were holding race riots. Freeing slaves was not a universally popular idea in the north by any means, while preservation of the Union was a unifying theme.
Lincoln picked his fights and moved cautiously.
Judge Goes Way Below Minimum
"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.
He is. There is a trend right now where many senior citizens (and others) are ordering the very same drugs they get in the USA from Canada at 20-50% of the price. Some US agency (i forget which) is getting ready to start airing ad campaingns stating how "dangerous" this practice can be. (In order to protect the bottom line, which is hurting from the faster, more efficient, and far cheaper Canadian alternatives. Maybe they are already, I don't watch TV.) So I think he may have been joking... albeit hard to tell.
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 the Christian right do-- they seem to be allied to Bushie like they are joined to him at the hip. The Patriot Act seems awfully Nixonian to me.
As for the topic at hand, don't forget that the end of the 10th Amendment says "to the people". This last of the amendments comprising the Bill of Rights, you could say, forms a bookend with the preamble of the Constitution, which begins with WE THE PEOPLE. What if the towns or states who passed their anti-Patriot Act resolutions said, "we are doing this on behalf of the people"?
This might not pass muster, but the lodging of a court case by an individual, if the government is forced to allow someone detained under the Patriot Act to get legal counsel, just might have a chance.
Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
There are no constitutional rights to privacy.
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.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
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.
According to the US Supreme Court interpretation of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 9th amendments, there are constitutional rights to privacy. The Court found I think in Griswold v Connecticut that the right to privacy was constitutionally protected, and cited approvingly a definition of privacy from an 1890 law review article that called it "the right most valued by civilized man."
Of course, this is all explained in the famous quote from Lincoln:
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
""Our government has a checks and balances system," Pieruccini said. "While sometimes it moves slowly, these cases . . . are going to find their way up to the Supreme Court."
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.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
The real quotation is:
When the people fear the government you have tyranny
When the government fears the people you have liberty.
--Thomas Jefferson
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
"3 states and 130 cities have passed legislation forbidding local local authorities from cooperating with federal PATRIOT requests"
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
This is exactly why there was some argument against having a bill of rights in the constitution in the first place. The fear was that if you explicitly state what rights *DO* exist, it sounds very much like you are saying that something being disallowed is the norm until stated otherwise. Some would have rather had the constitution phrased the opposite way around - state was citizens are NOT allowed to do, and state that anything not explicitly mentioned in that list is allowed.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Sheesh, never any mod points when I actually want 'em. This Scientific American article deals with some of the same issues.
"Now, are you talking about the US system or the Canadian system here"
This is the Canadian health care system, which is set up to severely limit coverage for those called "special needs" people.
"You're damned right the US system is set up to deny basic healthcare to the "wrong" sorts of people (anyone Ayn Rand would call a "loser", FWIW)"
No, the US healthcare system includes giveaways to the poor: medicare/medicaid. Nothing Randian about it.
As a supporter of the ACLU club which pushed the City of Claremont, CA to pass a bill that prevents the use of the Patriot Act clauses within the bounds of claremont (though not speaking in my capacity as a member of that group), my research found that local government is given the power to restrict the use of law enforcement as it sees fit.
National government cannot force local governments to act in accordance with any new policy like this, what national governement has done is to declare certain, formerly off-limits investigative measures to now be appropriate in certain cases.
By recreating the laws that the Patriot act is designed to circumvent at a local level, these efforts do put a true legal block on the searches. Though federal authorities may ignore the local statute, any objective court should be able to decide that the federal action is out of bounds and dismiss the case.
**When craziness is bliss, 'tis folly to be sane**
You might want to brush up on your Constitutional reading there, buddy. There are four paths for an amendment to be ratified -- granted, only two of them have been used, but all four are possible:
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.
When the laws get you down, find ways to work with them.
Of note: Five technically legal signs for your library.
Kevin Fox