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."

Comments

And this took how long?

[an.echte.trilingue]

Seriously, why did this take so long?

Re:And this took how long?

[Speedracer1870]

It would be unpatriotic to vote down the patriot act. Seriously, it would have been a lot easier to defeat had it been named the communist act.

Re:And this took how long?

[morgan_greywolf]

The patriotic thing to do is to uphold the Constitution, the highest law of the land. You know, the document your forefathers fought and died to uphold. If the PATRIOT Act is in conflict with the Constitution, then it is unpatriotic, just like the Members of Congress who voted it in and the President who signed the bill.

Re:And this took how long?

[durin]

What went wrong with the USofA?

Bush?

Re:And this took how long?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

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.

Re:And this took how long?

[Anonymous Coward]

What went wrong with the USofA?

Bush?

Nah, the downfall started before him - otherwise how did he manage to get elected in the first place?

Re:And this took how long?

[DoofusOfDeath]

If the PATRIOT Act is in conflict with the Constitution, then it is unpatriotic, just like the Members of Congress who voted it in and the President who signed the bill.

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.

Re:And this took how long?

[Sierpinski]

It would be unpatriotic to vote down the patriot act. Seriously, it would have been a lot easier to defeat had it been named the communist act.

I was asking myself the same question (parent of this parent as well), why did it take several years for something that was so much of a blatant violation of the Bill of Rights be removed? Does it actually take a challenge (ie lawsuit) for a court to overturn anti-constitutional laws?

You can go back even farther, how in the world did Congress ever allow this bill to become law anyway? Oh, did it ride on the coattails of another bill that was a sure-in to be signed? Now THAT is something that I think needs to change. If something is important enough to go before Congress, it should warrant its OWN vote, and not be able to be attached to something else, especially if the bill it's being attached to has nothing to do with the attached bill.

Of course, lets see Congress pass a law outlawing that. Where are the checks and balances here?
They didn't really talk much about the underhanded tricks of Congress in my high school government class.

Re:And this took how long?

[neoform]

You'll notice however that unlike in the past, the Patriot Act was (by it's backers at least) hoped to be a permanent new set of laws. The Patriot Act's original wording might have made it temporary, but that was quickly amended. This was never about being for the war, this was just a power grab, and it worked, despite having just had a part of it overturned.

Think about it like this, if it took 5 years to have a piece of the Patriot Act thrown out.. what's to stop another identical new law from being passed and taking ANOTHER 5 years to have it thrown out, all the while being used to illegally wiretap? The only way to stop this from happening again is prosecute those who did the illegal wiretaps.

Re:And this took how long?

[cluckshot]

I want to pitch a little bit of history of the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. It is critical to this discussion.

The Bill of Rights pushed by the "Anti-Federalists" led by Thomas Jefferson was never intended to give the government power nor was it intended to do anything other than provide a tripwire for the citizens to know the government was getting out of hand. It wasn't an enumeration of rights either. 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. That is the reason pure and simple. It was to protect the people from terrorism of the worst kind.

Rather than being a beginner to terrorism as the press and President would have you believe the USA was forged in a sea of terrorism. Its right there in the Declaration of Independence if you want to read it. It happened in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama from 1810 to 1814 with tens of thousands killed. It happened in the Plains Indian Wars of the 1867 to 1885 period. It happened again in the West USA as late as after 1900! (I know my family was there!) Yes it was state sponsored. England Paid the bills. Yes it was religious extremist terrorists every time.

The USA is an ignorant fool if it thinks that giving up its right will make it safe. These rights including the right to be armed are essential rights. Just like removing the quills from a porcupine does not make it safer or protect its rights, removing the rights of people does not make them safe or protect them. Just as a quill free porcupine is now at risk of all terrors people without their rights are the same. As nobody makes a business of kicking porcupines nobody makes a business of picking on a well armed and well defended people who defend their rights.

Today we in the USA see ourselves threatened on every side by a terrorism of the State which is using Al Quada as a mafia enforcer to extract about a trillion dollars in stolen money from the American People each year as a result of this protection racket. This engine of terrorism comes up with new threats every appropriations season in congress. This terrorism by the state has broken our currency stealing more than 1/3 of the value of everything in the USA. It has broken our armed forces in the world and threatens to sink the entire world into a new reign of terror such as has never been seen. All of this is in the name of the "Patriot Act". Real patriots will oppose the sheering of rights that makes this possible.

Re:And this took how long?

[Lloyd_Bryant]

I was asking myself the same question (parent of this parent as well), why did it take several years for something that was so much of a blatant violation of the Bill of Rights be removed? Does it actually take a challenge (ie lawsuit) for a court to overturn anti-constitutional laws? Yes. A judge cannot, on his own initiative, declare a law unconstitutional. There first must be a legitimate challenge to the law made by someone. And people can't simply file a suit to challenge *any* law - they must be able to show that they "have standing", which basically means they can show that the law in question has negatively affected them in some fashion.

You can go back even farther, how in the world did Congress ever allow this bill to become law anyway? It was simply 9/11 madness. If enough people can be sufficiently frightened, then just about *any* law can be ramrodded through Congress. It's one of the great weaknesses in the whole democratic concept, and one of the major reasons that the Founding Fathers put all those checks-and-balances into the Constitution.

Re:And this took how long?

[Daniel_Staal]

I was asking myself the same question (parent of this parent as well), why did it take several years for something that was so much of a blatant violation of the Bill of Rights be removed? Does it actually take a challenge (ie lawsuit) for a court to overturn anti-constitutional laws? Yes. In theory you could pass another law which says the old law is invalid, but in practice nearly any law will stand until challenged in court. Congress, like any other body of people, rarely wants to admit it was wrong.

You can go back even farther, how in the world did Congress ever allow this bill to become law anyway? Oh, did it ride on the coattails of another bill that was a sure-in to be signed? As much as I hate that practice, that is not relevant in this case: the PATRIOT act was it's own bill, and it was a sure-in to be signed. It was the immedeate, paniced, reaction to the 9/11 attacks. People wanted Congress to do something anything to make them 'safe' again. Unfortunately in the panic, the bill that was presented made us less safe, not more. But it sounded like it made people safe, so that was enough.

Re:And this took how long?

[Anonymous Coward]

The US government has been at war with someone, somewhere in the world, every single year of the past 100 years.

The US government of today dwarfs the US government of only 100 years ago, both in revenue and power over the people.

The US government is now the most expensive, most powerful government AND world empire (military bases in some 150 countries around the world) that has ever existed.

Clearly, this near-exponential growth of government over the past century began well before Bush was even born, and in all probability, will continue long after he's gone. Forget about who's holding power at any given time -- what we need to recognize is the big picture, and clearly, the big picture shows a government determined to expand in power and revenue year after year.

I think it's time to swallow our pride and accept that the driving force behind government is self-interest. There's a reason why every year we are subject to more laws than the year before, and every year government takes in more revenue than the year before -- and it's not because making government bigger is unprofitable for those in the business of government.

Make no mistake, this is the biggest, most lucrative business that could ever exist.

Re:And this took how long?

[suv4x4]

I think the history is that the courts have allowed temporary wartime injustices like this in the past

US is in war with someone almost all the time, what a convenient setup.

So basically, the President has no power to take out civil liberties and break the constitution... buuut he has the power to start a war, declare wartime, and THEN he can do whatever the hell he feels like.

I love it :)

Re:And this took how long?

[Antique Geekmeister]

You misspelled "Reaganomics" there.

Re:And this took how long?

[cs02rm0]

What went wrong with the USofA?

Bush?

Nah, the downfall started before him - otherwise how did he manage to get elected in the first place?

Bush?

Re:And this took how long?

[godscent]

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.

Re:And this took how long?

[mapsjanhere]

The "standing" problem is what keeps most of the hidden surveillance in place. Since you can't show that they spied on you, you can't sue. It even went so far that even when people had evidence that their phone calls had been tapped (as happened when some attorney got a list of tapped phone calls from the FBI by mistake) the evidence was declared classified and inadmissible. No list, no standing, no law suit. And the telecom industry hides behind a statute that forbids them to talk about the surveillance, and so can claim they cannot defend themselves, and get the suits tossed on that basis.

Re:And this took how long?

[stewbacca]

And in hindsight, both Bush Sr, and Clinton took an awful lot of bad raps. They are both looking pretty stellar in comparison to what we have now.

Re:And this took how long?

[eln]

Saying people are wrong and backing up your argument with a very, very simple and generalized economic argument that has been misused by tax cut advocates for decades is silly. All the Laffer curve does is say that there is a theoretical tax rate at which revenues are maximized. It says nothing about what that tax rate might be, and it says nothing about what other factors may change this "optimal" tax rate. In fact, your own link states that some studies have put the optimal tax rate as high as 80%!

Tax receipts are the highest they've ever been due mostly to the fact that the economy is larger than it's ever been. More money coming in to the country as a whole means more money the government can skim off the top. This is true regardless of what the tax rate is, so long as the economy is continuously growing at some rate greater than zero.

The real question to ask is what impact have these particular tax cuts had on the overall growth rate of the economy. The answer to this question, of course, has to take into account an almost infinite number of factors, and does not really have a clear answer, which is why tax cuts are such great political tools. You cut taxes, and when the economy inevitably grows (as it has done nearly every year for decades) you can take all the credit for it. If you are unlucky enough to cut taxes at a time when the economy contracts, you can claim that the people (who are now poorer because of the contraction) need more tax relief, and cut taxes again. Then, when the economy grows, you can again take credit for it.

The truth is, the tax rate under normal conditions has very little impact on total economic growth. The economy is just too large and complex for a minor (in comparison with total revenue) tax cut to have a major impact. Unless the rate swings wildly (say, from 20 to 90% in the space of a few years), it will not impact economic growth in any significant way. Other government decisions can have far greater impacts on the economy than fiddling with the tax rate ever could.

Re:And this took how long?

[HarvardAce]

So basically, the President has no power to take out civil liberties and break the constitution... buuut he has the power to start a war, declare wartime, and THEN he can do whatever the hell he feels like. Except that, constitutionally, he doesn't have the power to declare war, only Congress does.

Re:And this took how long?

[Red Flayer]

Real patriots will oppose the sheering of rights that makes this possible.

Yes, our rights are opaque and should never, ever be sheered.

Perhaps you meant "sheared"? I agree that our rights should always be woolly, and shearing them would be a fleecing of the highest order.

Re:And this took how long?

[Dausha]

"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.

Re:And this took how long?

[ShatteredArm]

Probably late 19th century? I've read opinion pieces (obviously not historical fact, but interesting nonetheless) that point to the civil war as the first blatant, widespread instance of a president stepping way outside the constitution (did the constitution require states to stay in the union?).

But, even if that isn't considered abuse of presidential power, I think it would be over the course of the first half of the 20th century when we went from an isolationist, federalist, fairly libertarian state to a meddling, centralized, nanny beauracracy. FDR implemented the nanny state during the Great Depression, and his foreign policy wasn't what we would call isolationist. I'm not a history buff, so I don't know how the presidents before him would rate, but it seems to me that alot of our governmental problems can be traced back to him. But maybe that's just because he spent four terms in office...

Re:And this took how long?

[TheSolomon]

You're omitting the other part of the judge's point. Yes, searches cannot be "unreasonable" (as defined by whatever laws), but also "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause."

There are different times when these apply. When it comes to airport security, you are consenting to having your person and belongings searched. Being searched is not forced upon you; you can always choose another form of travel. Since you have consented--by sheer virtue of being an airline passenger--the rules of 'reasonable' and 'warrants' do not apply.

The notions of 'reasonable' and 'warrants' come into play when you do not consent to a search. Police officers cannot subject you to a search (without a warrant & without consent) unless they have strong evidence you are in the process of committing a crime, etc. Otherwise, law enforcement must petition a judge with their claim, and the judge rewards the search warrant based upon the merits of those claims.

It is my understanding warrants are *absolutely* required for non-emergency searches when the property owner is not present. Regardless of whether the search is "reasonable" or not, this portion of the Patriot Act is unconstitutional because search warrants are being granted without the required "probable cause."

No probable cause == no search warrant. No search warrant & no consent == no search. Any other way requires a change to the constitution.

Ron Paul will get rid of it all

[vsync64]

Ron Paul voted against it in the first place and has tried to restore civil rights at every chance since then.

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 ... until now.

Useless Victory

[CWRUisTakingMyMoney]

Great...now how will anyone be able to use this ruling if they don't know they've been searched in the first place? You need legal standing to sue, and that means being able to prove you've been searched, which act will be either 1) impossible or 2) illegal under the same Act.

Re:Useless Victory

[Elemenope]

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.

AdBlock Plus Plus

[florescent_beige]

At what point can we expect an AdBlock Plus, Ron Paul edition? Because, I'm wanting one.

Re:AdBlock Plus Plus

[neoform]

Step 1:

File > Save Page

Step 2:

Open html page in text editor.

Step 3:

Search/Replace "Ron Paul" with "Santa Clause".

Step 4:

Open saved page in browser of choice.

Step 5:

Feelings of good tidings and joy.

And this took how long?-long enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the government and the law are like a barge instead of a speedboat. Just be glad that it CAN still happen (contrary to what the cynics say).

This will sound very pessimistic

[Zombie Ryushu]

I have a feeling that in some way we will see a repeat of the Indian Removal act with this. Congress and the President will say: The justices have made their decision, now let them enforce it.

Score one for the Founding Fathers

[Crock23A]

I am by no means an expert on the constitution or politics but everything I've read about the Patriot Act seems to go against what I was taught in school. This sounds like a first step back towards where this country was intended to be.

All I have to say is...

[CFBMoo1]

It's about damn time we don't give up our principles for security. Glad to see someone in the three branches of government finally standing up for whats right. I don't want security in my country if it gives my government a blank check to do whatever it pleases. We all know what could happen down the road if governments get too much control and decide they could do what they like.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/09/27/myanmar.protests/index.html

That could very well be in our future if we write blank checks for terrorism prevention. Lets keep our own house in order so when we go to clean up someone elses house we don't look like fools.

Re:And tonight's top story....

[rolfwind]

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

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[RobBebop]

Changing viewpoints isn't such a bad thing when new information concludes that your current viewpoint is wrong. What really bothers me is how the current American administration marches forward with their "principles" despite a vast quantity of evidence that suggests they are wrong.

That's corruption without a lack of a spine... and it is even more dangerous.

The Bravest Woman in American Government

[0x7E7]

What amazes me, frankly, is that this has happened at all. From what I've seen in my short life, most people who rise to positions of authority in the U.S. Government are totally unwilling to trade their position and prestige for Constitutional principle. Although I am unfamiliar with her situation, I suspect that this particular judge will rise no higher in the ranks of the Federal Government (which may not be her wish, anyway).

As an aside, I am really tired of hearing about all of the cool stuff around health care and civil rights coming out of Oregon. I'm from New York, and damn it, they're making us "East Coast Liberals" look like a bunch of featherweights who never get anything done.

Re:The Bravest Woman in American Government

[Temkin]

Although I am unfamiliar with her situation, I suspect that this particular judge will rise no higher in the ranks of the Federal Government

That would be up to us. If we remember her for her good works, and demand her promotion via the electoral process, she will advance. If we keep electing corporate plutocrats... Perhaps not.

Floored

[n3tcat]

I'm stunned. I had no idea the American system was still capable of curing these problems anymore.

I was well on the way to staying in Germany permanently due to the issues I've had with the US government over the last few years. Big victories like this one cause me to stop and reflect, however, and several more actions of this nature will make living in America seem appealing again.

Re:Regarding Ron Paul...

[morgan_greywolf]

Most of those are pretty bad, and I don't agree with all of his ideology, but I'm a practical guy. The country has gotten out of whack with the PATRIOT Act and other laws designed to erode your liberty under the guise of 'fighting terrorism.' I'm also not sure if all of those things are true, but I've heard them all.

There are no terrorists. Al Qaeda is and has been working for the CIA and the NSA. And Ron Paul is the only guy on the roster who sees that and is willing to clear it up. Hillary and Barrack both voted for the PATRIOT Act and the war. So did Fred Thompson and Mit Romney. These are facts, not FUD, and I'm not trying to start a flamewar, so mod me down if you like mods, but metamods need to pay attention, too, because you aren't supposed to mod based on your political opinion.

Re:And tonight's top story....

[wytcld]

America is more than just its Constitution. America is its people. A patriot is more loyal to the people than to a piece of paper. The people, on the whole, are only semi-literate anyway, so no piece of paper can bring order to them. What brings order isn't paper, but a great leader. We don't like Hitler, Stalin and Mao not because they were great leaders, but because they led countries other than America. Great leaders thrive in warrior cultures. Now there is a choice before us: Do we go forward with the warrior culture of Great Leader Bush, putting Rudy or Mitt or Fred in his place - leaders who even the semi-literate can understand - or do we retreat into "Constitutional" leadership which is hobbled, nuanced, afraid of battle - and beyond what the American people as a whole can comprehend and unite behind?

For decades polls have shown the American people would not support the Bill of Rights if it were up for a vote today. Finally we have a government that's done something about that. It takes a judge to get in the way, to confuse things.

Bush's response

[ciaran.mchale]

I expect Bush will say something like "The judge's ruling shows that the constitution is unpatriotic and therefore needs to be changed."

Amazing it made it this far!

[TheSpatulaOfLove]

When they began talking about the unPatriot Act, I called BS immediately. This administration and Congress have wiped their collective asses with the Constitution and they should be indicted for treason.

Fine, I'll give the legislators a bone here about passing this legislation while everyone was reeling from 9/11, but I still can't believe that our leaders who are voted to protect the Constitution VOTED FOR IT AGAIN! Amazing!

This piece of garbage is not about 'protecting freedom' - it's all about control and falls in line with Daddy Bush's vision of the New World Order. The largest obstacle to this was the American Constitution. Take away those rights, and it's easy to become dictator. I'm glad SOMEONE in power woke the fuck up and saw that the unPatriot Act pretty much canceled out every major right the Constitution guarantees US citizens!


They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Attemted treason

[Froze]

Wouldn't it be great if we could charge all those who signed the bill into law with attempted treason?

Re:Attemted treason

[Alizarin Erythrosin]

Why not start with violation of oath, and have them kicked out of office? I mean, the oath they take says something about "upholding the Constitution", right? Then we can move on to other things like treason. Get them out of office first.

Re:Attemted treason

[Kirth Gersen]

The parent has been rated Troll. I don't see why. The Patriot Act was treasonous as well as being unconstitutional: there have been plenty of laws which were merely unconstitutional, but the Patriot Act allowed the Bush administration to claim it could legally ignore the constitution. Just being the President doesn't mean you can't be a traitor to the United States: it just means you have a much better chance of success.

Re:Regarding Ron Paul...

[apparently]

Opposes hate crime legislation, as a crime is a crime is a crime, by statute. I'm pretty sure if you kill someone, the thing they would care about is their being dead, not what was going through your head when you did it.

The difference between a murder and a murder conducted as a hate crime is that in the latter, the murder has an additional purpose in that it's perpetrated to serve as a warning toward members of the attacked group. I.e.: A hate crime committed against a homosexual is supposed to serve as a warning to other homosexuals in the community. A hate crime committed toward an African American, is supposed to serve as a warning to other African Americans -- think of a lynching, where the body is left hanging for public display. Thus, there actually is a difference in murdering an individual, and also hoping that said murder will serve as a "Fags go home", or "Know your place nigger" warning statement. Not to throw a word around that is often used incorrectly, but it's a form of terrorism against those communities -- not only was the victim attacked, but the community was as well, hence the additional penalty of committing the crime. (That's using the definition of terrorism as an act that is supposed to instill fear and intimidation into a group of individuals)

Re:Regarding Ron Paul...

[shadow_slicer]

I'm sorry, but I as with you until:

Voted to allow bigoted Alabama judge to post Ten Commandments in courtroom, as free expression is just one of those things we used to care about..

The issue in this case was not a small wall hanging obtained with personal funds. In this case it was a large monument obtained using several thousand dollars of state funds. It was moved in during the middle of the night without notifying anybody. I'm for free expression as much as the next person, and if Roy wanted to use his personal funds to procure a sign or something for his office that's fine, but using state funds to purchase a gigantic monument and placing it in the courthouse lobby of the AL state supreme court kind of crosses the line a bit, no?
And, although the media primarily focused on the religion aspects, that isn't what bothered most people. The problem was the reckless misappropriation of government funds and the clandestine procedures. If they have funded it some other way and gone through normal channels I'm not sure it would have been such a big issue.

Re:Regarding Ron Paul...

[Elemenope]

True. However, the courts already make a sharp distinction between expressive speech and expressive action; burning a cross on a lawn, for example, is intended to cause real harm of the sort you describe, and has no external speech value (unless it's in a Madonna music video...;)). The problem with hate crime legislation per se is that it serves to dissolve the distinction between prohibited acts and prohibited motivations; I don't have much problem with "Hate Crime Legislation" that has a discrete evidentiary burden for a criminalized act intended and normally understood to intimidate a community of persons. However, the difficulty of crafting such legislation finely enough to avoid the criminalization of attitudes and intents that are distasteful but not terroristic is such that I am skeptical any body of legislators (being human and thus subject to the passions and hysterias of the crowd) can successfully do so in all but the most obvious and clear-cut types of behaviors.

I personally think government should solemnly give up the notion it can make people better and concentrate on preventing people from harming each other with overt acts. The protection of communities, including disadvantaged ones, comes from them being assured that they are secure in their persons from harm, and that only comes from the Rule of Law being clear and acting to quash destructive behaviors and acts by applying that rule. Suppressing ideologies for their own sake is never very successful.

Does he have a time machine?

[Grendel Drago]

Given that Obama entered the Senate in 2005, he must have used a time machine to go back and vote for the war in 2002 and the Patriot Act in 2001. Since he didn't go a bit further back and shoot Hitler, he's objectively pro-Hitler. Well, he's just lost my vote.

Re:Obama did NOT vote for the war.

[quanticle]

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.

He's bigoted against gay folks.

[Grendel Drago]

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.

Get your dates right.

[Grendel Drago]

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.

Re:Summary of the Case

[defile39]

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.

Re:Regarding Ron Paul...

[Toonol]

There are no terrorists. Al Qaeda is and has been working for the CIA and the NSA. And Ron Paul is the only guy on the roster who sees that and is willing to clear it up.

That is not what Ron Paul says. He does not believe there is any conspiracy with the US government behind the terrorist attacks, just that our government's incompetence made it easier for them.

I'm a Paul supporter, also, and I'm sure you're trying to help. But, seriously, support from conspiratorialists helps Ron Paul about as much as support from the Communist party helps David Kucinich.

Re:Regarding Ron Paul...

[KarmaOverDogma]

"There are no terrorists. Al Qaeda is and has been working for the CIA and the NSA. And Ron Paul is the only guy on the roster who sees that and is willing to clear it up. Hillary and Barrack both voted for the PATRIOT Act and the war. So did Fred Thompson and Mit Romney. These are facts, not FUD,"

If these are facts, how about some citations and references? Credible sources would make this assertion even more interesting.

Re:What is happening to /.?

[Anonymous Coward]

"News for nerds. Stuff that matters." That means we can talk about stuff other than technology, assuming it interests nerds and that it matters.

Re:And tonight's top story....

[Mix Master Nixon]

The scary thing is that this, for the most part, makes a great deal of sense. The American people, on the whole, are semi-literate. Even the ones who can and do read often do so in the most shallow of ways. Clearly these semi-literates value a strong leader, such as Bush or, yes, the more notorious examples listed. Hitler may have been concentrated evil in a fleshy bottle, but he was indisputably a "strong leader", as were Stalin and Mao. The "choice" presented is real. I don't think we need leaders that the modern American people can "comprehend"; we need to raise the average American's level of comprehension instead, and proceed from there.

Damn activist judges!

[Abcd1234]

Trying to, like... enforce the constitution. How dare they legislate from the bench!

Re:Obama did NOT vote for the war.

[Tickletaint]

Turns out you can't describe a complex issue in "yes" or "no" terms. Or a gigantic, sprawling clusterfuck in "up" and "down" votes, for that matter. Who knew?

Re:Regarding Ron Paul...

[darkonc]

... the Supreme Court is supreme only over other federal courts - not over the other branches of government". It's not a case of court vs court. It's a case of judge vs constitution.

The constitution explicitly bans the establishment of a state religion -- and that's for a purpose. It seems fine when when you agree with the state religion, but it really sucks when the slippery slope gets so steep that you're persecuted for not believing in the same god as the (current) government does. Imagine if Utah had a $100/day head tax for non-Mormons, and the surrounding states retaliated with a $100/day tax for being Mormon. Imagine it then going downhill from there... There are many times in history when people were Killing each other over which religious sect held sway (from the later roman empire, to the British wars of succession to modern-day Iraq).

Many of the framers of the constitution were (children of) religious refugees.
They weren't anti-religious. Quite to the contrary -- you have to have a very strong faith to pull up stakes and move to a wild continent rather than just silently put up with the current political fad in religiousity. The point of the separation of church and state was that they wanted to be able to partake in their own brand of devout religion, independent of the (often fake) piosity of the current President/Governor.