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."

Comments

federal vs. state.

[garcia]

Ok, so three states have passed anti-PA legislation?

What about California's (and others) medical pot legislations? Do the federal drug agents care when they storm into these people's "gardens" and prosecute them to the full extent of FEDERAL law?

Hell, do the Federal agents care when they destroy the Native American's HEMP fields (which were allowed under a law in the late 1800s?)

NO.

State's rights (which should be more important) aren't shit. Remember that.

Re:federal vs. state.

[garcia]

the Native Americans have a treaty to grow hemp. It wasn't a law (although it should have been considered so)...

Sorry.

Re:federal vs. state.

[pla]

State's rights (which should be more important) aren't shit. Remember that.

You make a good point, but need to also consider what it takes on a local level for the feds to enforce the patriot act.

By forcing noncompliance, local areas can remove most of the teeth of the Patriot act. Businesses and libraries deliberately getting rid of client information after 24 hours removes most of the privacy-stripping portions of the act. Local police refusing to cooperate with the feds on Patriot-act related investigations leaves the feds with no more power than they had before. Entire states deliberately hindering federal investigations can, in many situations, leave the FBI et al in a worse position than before the Patriot act (when local police would often help as much as possible, even if they didn't need to).

So yes, this seemingly "only symbolic" protesting by states, cities, and private businesses does have the potential to make the Patriot act all but meaningless.


What about California's (and others) medical pot legislations?

If you followed it, you'll notice that Ed Rosenthal received a whopping one-day sentence, of time served. Even the Federal courts have started realizing that they can't sustain a war against their own member states.

Re:federal vs. state.

[Dok Fenderson]

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

Re:federal vs. state.

[Phroggy]

Oregon has an assisted suicide law that was approved by voters twice. Ashcroft decided it should be illegal, and declared that the lethal drugs Oregon doctors can prescribe (under very limited circumstances, of course) serve no legitimate medical purpose and therefore were controlled substances, and instructed the DEA to arrest doctors who prescribed the drugs. It went to the Supreme Court and Ashcroft lost.

One of Oregon's senators - Gordon Smith I think - said he opposes this state law, but he fought for Oregon's right to have it.

Re:federal vs. state.

[sebmol]

1: If the constitution doesn't say anything, it's up to congress.

That's not quite what the constitution says. The founders put rather strict limitations on the power of congress and enumerated its specific ressponsibiliies. It also stated that all powers not enumerated in it would belong to the states.

In reality, Congress has assumed more power out of the interstate-commerce clause which led to minimum wage and other labor standards, social security, etc.

Re:federal vs. state.

[Dok Fenderson]

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

Re:federal vs. state.

[Wyatt Earp]

Actually Lincoln did alot of bad things during the Civil War.

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Ordered the arrest, jailing and deportation of Congressmen and reporters.

The Army was sent into New York City during the 1863 draft riots to put them down.

There were more than 13,000 arrests of Northern civilians during the war after Lincoln had suspended the writ of habeas corpus, including dozens, if not hundreds, of newspaper editors and owners who were critical of the Lincoln administration.

In 1862 there was fighting between federal soldiers and settlers and the Santee Indians of Minnesota. At the end of the hostilities 303 Indians who were present at the conclusion of the fighting were arrested, imprisoned, and scheduled to be executed after military tribunals that lasted about ten minutes each. Lincoln was fearful that the European powers might be encouraged to be more supportive of the Confederacy if they learned of a mass execution of 303 men whose guilt had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, so he pared the number down to just 39.

Re:federal vs. state.

[josh crawley]

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.

Re:federal vs. state.

[rking]

the Native Americans have a treaty to grow hemp. It wasn't a law (although it should have been considered so)...

I thought that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Saying that treaties aren't laws seems hard to reconcile with them being part of the supreme law of the land.

Re:federal vs. state.

[cellocgw]

I am SOOO glad I was born in Canada.
Why don't you folks hurry up and conquer us? I for one could use a new gov't, not to mention a little more respect for hockey.

It's either that or my kids'll have to emigrate just to 1) avoid the draft, 2) get access to reproductive health care, 3) escape Ashcroft, 4) marry whomever they want.

Re:federal vs. state.

[SenorMooCow]

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.

That's it I'm going out and making myself some laws!

Re:federal vs. state.

[IWannaBeAnAC]

Laws (or constitutions, or treaties, or whatever) mean only what the relevant powers interpret them to mean. I didn't quite understand the implications of this when I was younger; I used to think "yeah, the bill of rights, the constitution, these are good things to have, put it all down in writing and make it concrete. No room for ambiguity."

The opposing situation is countries with no [explicit] bill of rights, rather some form of unwritten convention (even 'ideal'? Is that word too embarrasing to use in the 21st century?). This I think covers most other countries, where the constitution has less prominance (I am Australian, and I can confidently say that *no one* has any more than a vague notion of what it says - for good reason actually, it is a very boring document mostly talking about how Queen Victoria of England agrees to delegate Her power to the Australian Parliament), and there is no explicit "bill of rights" as such, rather the notions are embodied across a much wider scope, and it can't really be pinned down to one place. It is not uncommon to see stories of USA school students complaining to someone (headmaster, school board, whatever) that something that is imposed upon them violates their rights under the constitution[footnote]. The notion of involving the constitution in such a matter is actually quite ludicrous to an Australian (any Aussies out there, please argue the case if you think I am wrong). Not because those rights don't exist, but because they exist at more levels of society. Call it a sense of "fair play" or whatever you will, but it is far more important than the Constitution.

The point is this (and maybe this is even irony - until the last week I thought I had a fair idea what that meant, but I don't think so anymore): Having an explicit, legally intepretable document only allows the lawyers the excuse "we were only following the law" when they come up with some narrow interpretation that flies against the popular notion of what the spirit meant.

On the other hand, if there is no such written document, there is no room for argument over the interpretation, the only guide is the *spirit*.

The real question is, which system is more open to long-term abuse? Unfortunately I cannot predict the answer to that. The answer to the question of which system suffers more short/medium term abuse is, I think, obvious.

[footnote] (and I think this is *real* irony) Undoubtably, Australian minors have more actual rights than US minors.

Re:Why hasn't this been shot down in the

[Gunnery Sgt. Hartman]

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.

In case you're curious...

[ragingmime]

The text of the Act is here, and there are explanations in regular English here and here.

Re:Why hasn't this been shot down in the

[sebmol]

One word: standing. The Supreme Court only hear cases where the parties have standing. That means, some damage has to be done to you as a result of the Patriot Act. The Supreme Court does not test laws for constitutionality without a plaintiff who has standing.

Here's the trick though: if you fall victim to the Patriot Act, you may not have access to the judicial system. That means, you will never get a chance to challenge it in court.

This is considerably different from many other republican systems where the highest court can often test laws for constitutionality based on a single complaint of a citizen or a branch/agency of the government.

How about the librarians?

[SuperBanana]

To date, 3 states and 130 cities have passed legislation forbidding local authorities from cooperating with federal PATRIOT requests, not to mention the numerous businesses who are taking pains to hamper the Act's coverage

How about mentioning some of the loudest critics- librarians. Most are madder than hell about the Patriot Act, and politicians are finding that going up against librarians(which are seen as by the public as incredibly smart, among other things) isn't very popular. From some of our youngest years, librarians have earned a place of respect as wise, intelligent, helpful, kind people.

Most libraries now display signs at checkout desks and computer workstations warning you they can be forced to turn over information about what you check out etc....and most also now destroy those records on a daily basis, paper or electronic.

And, as Peter Jennings pointed out with a smile on his face, your local library is a great place to sit down and read a copy of the Patriot Act. The librarians will be more than happy to assist.

Folks- libraries across the country are suffering from budget cutbacks just like everyone else. If you think it's awesome that librarians are on your side against the Patriot Act, might I suggest helping them back by volunteering? Think outside the (computer) box too- help reshelf books, read to kids in the children's library, etc...

Re:How about the librarians?

[Mercuria]

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.

Re:Nice Legislation system you have there!

[rajafarian]

"We" don't make the laws. "They" do with the assumption we actually want them to. Do they ask us? no.

While I think that may be true sometimes, I think many times they make laws because

1. Corporations asked ($$) for them.
2. It makes them sound like they're actually doing something for us so they can get re-elected. ("I passed a new law to protect our children.")

Re:A fitting quote

[heli0]

The real quotation is:

When the people fear the government you have tyranny
When the government fears the people you have liberty.
--Thomas Jefferson

Constitutional Conundrum

[Dukeofshadows]

Civil liberties in the US are under fire now than perhaps any point since the McCarthy era. The Patriot Act serves as a frightening visage of what power-hungry legislators may serve up to placate scared populations. What frightens me more, and what I have not seen mentioned here yet, is the precedent such an act sets. This precedent is carried into this new Domestic Security Enhancement Act which would allow for government-controlled wiretapping, secret arrests, and DNA bank construction on ordinary US citizens without our permission!

The balance between security and freedom is a tenuous one, with increased freedom permitting greater criminal activity and increased security quashing intellectual exploration and constructive criticism. Any criticism of our government is branded un-patriotic in many places (and even unofficially in the press) and may cause arguments or fights. Would the Patriot Act II, or DSEA, allow for political opposition to become targets of investigation by the ruling party? Our intellectual freedom is one of our strengths but what will happen to American society if we start to strangle it?

There are even those who get incensed about questioning the leadership of respective parties, whether G W Bush or H R Clinton is concerned. The actions of our government of late have divided this nation moreso than any I can ever remember. We have factionalized over new attempts of the current leadership in the federal government to expand their powers to those normally resevred for wartime status. However, without a Congressional declaration of war, can these be justified? Would US citizens be forced to turn to military courts under the new DSEA legislation where appeals may not exist and due process is a formality at best?

The first Patriot Act nearly bankrupted several states and forced reductions in education, law enforcement, education, and other areas. Another one may well bankrupt these states and damage the financial strength behind many others. Kentucky released 600 prisoners, while other states have taken more drastic measures. Thus, financially, socially, legally, and intellectually, we can ill afford this new legislation.

If the federal government is going to continue to impose on the rights of the people and states behind them, it sets up some of the same fears and mentality that lead to the Civil War. Any government that instills fear in its own people while being unable to properly manage its resources inevitably collapses, like the USSR. We appear to be on track to a similar fate if we enact these bills so blindly. Even the original Patriot Act divides local governments to the points that the police chiefs are willing to buck the local government to answer to the federal one. There must be better ways to protect the people of the US from the (rare) terrorist event without subjecting us to such loss of liberty and rights.

Re:Nice Legislation system you have there!

[Fuzzle]

Just as you would have been then. Don't make a mistake, our founding fathers were England's anarchists.