Slashdot Mirror
Parts of the Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional
BlueBlade writes "According to this CBS story, a federal judge ruled Wednesday that two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without a showing of probable cause."
Ron Paul voted against it in the first place and has tried to restore civil rights at every chance since then.
... until now.
Most other politicians voted for it without reading it, or were swept up in panic and kneejerk reactions, and now tiptoe around the issue. Ron Paul is adamant in requiring habeas corpus, warrants, and everything else that America has stood for
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
It has nothing to do with being a liberal. A lot of republicans voted for it and a lot of democrats did too. Hell, media darlings Hillary Clinton voted for it twice (original and renewal) and Barack Obama voted for the renewal of it.
The patriot act is just unconstitutional. Watch this video for a better understanding for where the country is heading (skip into 2:35 of the first video):
Part 1:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=t8QwTKKSvR8
Part 2:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GXzUL9KkgvA
Part 3:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=35yhSifZ5jI
Part 4:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fRukPp9Tq5k
Profile:
http://youtube.com/user/FutureFreedomF
- Opposes federal funding for stem cell research
- Pro-tax cuts, nearly all of which go to the rich
- Anti-U.N.
- Favors cutting gas taxes (go figure)
- Against corporate accountability
- Glorifies Ronald Reagan
- Supports corporate efforts to ship US jobs to China
- Attacks gun control and D.C. self-rule
- Anti-union
- Opposes hate crime legislation
- Supports "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
- Opposes allowing same-sex partners to adopt
- Voted to allow bigoted Alabama judge to post Ten Commandments in courtroom
- Co-sponsored Constitutional amendment pushing coerced prayer in public schools
- Opposes restoring the Pledge of Allegiance to the version without "Under God"
- And so on and so forth.
Oh, and if you're genuinely right-wingnut or wacko libertarian and actually admire Ron Paul for all the above—then you're a fucking idiot anyway, and no amount of truth will help set you straight. This message is aimed more at fellow travelers who for some reason imagine Ron Paul to be their savior. He's not, you internet dweebs.So cynical...while it has limited utility, the decision is not useless. Police tend to use surveillance techniques and police procedures which procure evidence that can be used to obtain a conviction; if the Act is unconstitutional, evidence obtained under its provisions is inadmissible in court. Knowing that, police agencies will be less likely to use powers in accord with those provisions, since anything that they gather using it will be useless in a court of law.
Yes I know police do go off the rails--"Don't taze me, bro!"--but at least a ruling of this sort curbs one of the worst abuses that can emanate from inappropriate police investigative conduct, namely convictions in a court of law.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Agreed. They were so afraid of getting attacked that they ignored the constitution they swore to uphold. So they are, specifically: cowards, traitors, and oath-breakers.
I think the history is that the courts have allowed temporary wartime injustices like this in the past, loss of habeas corpus during the Civil War (if you suggested peace with the South you might be arrested), internment of Germans in WWI, and the internment of Japanese in WWII.
The problem is that the current administration wants to have it both ways, wartime/emergency/crisis powers and wants the domestic life to otherwise behave as if there is no emergency, such as repeatedly cutting taxes, despite deficit spending.
I agree with all of what you say except the bold part, which I feel needs a response. So, AGAIN! Please read and learn the principal of the Laffer curve. I don't want to have to explain it again.
Now, we all know that Bush cut taxes after taking office. We also know that the government has been breaking records with tax receipts. The US government has brought in more money than at any point in history. How can this be? How does lowering taxes man more revenue? Well, as you can see from the Laffer curve, if you are on the right side of the peak, lowering taxes means more revenue. So, higher tax receipts prove we were on the right side of that curve.
So, because of what I've stated here, I think it is safe to assume that raising taxes will actually decrease the amount of money the government pulls in, NOT increase it. So WHY WHY WHY would you want to raise taxes? (Could someone ask this on the next YouTube Democratic debate please)
As for deficit spending... the problem is just that, SPENDING! While tax receipts have gone up, government spending has gone up even faster. This is why we have deficits, not because or lower taxes (See Laffer curve)
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
Actually, PATRIOT Act is also wrong. It's the USAPATRIOT Act, or The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.
If you look at his voting record, you'll see that his record on supporting the war is mixed at best, and that he has supported the Patriot Act's reauthorization.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
He cited the Bible in a court decision which declared gay couples "presumptively unfit to have custody of minor children", and referred to gay sex as an "inherent evil and an act so heinous that it defies one's ability to describe it". That smacks of bigotry to me, but perhaps you have another interpretation.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Note to self: Stop putting jokes in my insightful comments so I can get something other than +1 Funny!
The Bill of Rights was drafted by Madison in 1789. The French Revolution began that year, but the Reign of Terror didn't start until 1793. It seems a little odd that Jefferson could have foreseen how the Revolution overseas would turn out and been influenced to push for a Bill of Rights because of it, rather than arguments which had begun well before the French stormed the Bastille.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Let's see if I can actually get the formatting right . . . sorry!
Background:
The Patriot Act's amendment to the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) changed the FISA (enacted in 1978) from authorizing the use of electronic surveillance where the PRIMARY purpose was for gathering foreign intelligence to authorizing the same for merely SUBSTANTIAL purposes. This effectively gave the federal government the authority to conduct domestic criminal investigations under the watch of the FISC (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court - staffed by 10 district judges). The application for surveillance under the FISA must be certified as "substantially for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence" by a executive official (such as the director of the FBI). The FISC can only overrule this authority if the certification is "clearly erroneous." This standard of review is extremely high. Rarely are the decisions of people in-the-know "clearly erroneous," and therefore, rarely could the court make this determination, overruling the authority to engage in surveillance.
Facts of the Case:
This case involved some of the FBI's surveillance activities related to the Madrid train bombings (March 11, 2004 - bombs exploded in Madrid killing 191 and injuring 1600). Here, a fingerprint was found on a plastic bag holding one of the explosives. The FBI ran this fingerprint through their database and didn't get a perfect match. They then queried the system for the 20 best matches. The fourth best match discovered was Mayfield, an Oregon resident, a lawyer, and a Muslim. The fact that he was a Muslim notably influenced the FBI's interest. Despite the fact that the Spanish authorities examined the fingerprint and the supposed match and subsequently determined that there in fact was no match, the FBI's interest continued. The FBI, through the FISA court's approval, electronically spied on Mayfield and his family, entered into his house when he was away, and followed him, his wife, and his children. Eventually a search warrant was issued and many of the family's possessions were seized (computers, kids' homework, etc). Mayfield was arrested and held from May 6, 2004 through May 20, 2004. He was released because the Spanish authorities found the man who matched the fingerprint (Algerian, Ouhane Daoud). Mayfield contested the constitutionality of the Patriot Act's amendment to the FISA, claiming that, on its face, it violates the Fourth Amendment prohibition on illegal searches and seizures.
Summary (ignoring issues of standing, ripeness, etc):
The Fourth Amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . . . particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized." U.S. Const. Amend. IV. For a surveillance warrant to issue, law enforcement officials typically need to prove probable cause. This would generally require the demonstration of some set of facts that would implicate an individual in a crime. Under the original FISA, electronic surveillance could have been conducted upon demonstrating that the PRIMARY purpose of the surveillance was to gather foreign intelligence. The Patriot Act amendment virtually removes any safeguard that surveillance would be conducted for the primary purpose of domestic law enforcement. The District Court concluded that because there is no check to prevent the domestic surveillance of a US citizen, this amendment to FISA is unconstitutional on its face.
The primary problem was the certification and standard of review. Executive officials are, in effect, members of law enforcement for the purpose of certifying FISA applications. Their primary goal is to engage in these activities to support their investigations. To require their findings to only be overruled if they are "clearly erroneous" gives them too much leverage.
unlike in the past, the Patriot Act was ... hoped to be a permanent new set of laws
You do know that the federal income tax was supposed to be temporary, don't you? Today it's the single largest souce of power and revenue in the federal government, and one of the primary factors (along with 100+ years of continuous war) which has allowed them to become the most powerful, richest instance of centralized power this world has ever seen.
"T. Jefferson saw the French Revolution supposed to be a copy of our own revolution going seriously wrong. He built this to prevent terror by the state."
1. Bill of Rights---1789 (drafted by Madison).[1]
2. French Revolution's Reign of Terror---1792.[2]
3. Jefferson's role in the Constitution---None, he was in France. [3]
Based on the three facts above, I don't see how your statement stands. The Bill of Rights was not to prevent terrorism, but to prevent the Federal government from becoming bloated and repressive. The Courts have misconstrued the 14th Amendment to allow leveraging the BoR against states as well.[4]
The Bill of Rights states that searches cannot be _unreasonable_, which the Courts have defined. You can be searched in airports by federal officers (TSA) when traveling because the extreme risk of a bomb makes searching everybody reasonable. Allowing another 9/11 carries a high risk; which makes an otherwise unreasonable search _more_ reasonable. Probable cause twists with the risk of not searching.
This is also a Federal District judge making a ruling. There will likely be an appeal to the 9th Circuit and perhaps also to SCOTUS. This is only a shot across the bow of the PATRIOT Act.
----
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights ("[The Bill of Rights were initially] drafted by James Madison in 1789...")
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_revolution (The Revolution began in 1789)
[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_jefferson ("Because Jefferson served as minister to France from 1785 to 1789, he was not able to attend the Constitutional Convention. He generally supported the new constitution despite the lack of a Bill of Rights...")
[4] Amend XIV, Sec. 5 gives Congress sole enforcement authority. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html). However, SCOTUS and the state courts have applied it. This is itself unconstitutional in light of Section 5.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.