National Security Letter Issuance Likely Headed To Supreme Court

Gunkerty Jeb writes The Ninth Circuit appeals court in San Francisco took oral arguments from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Department of Justice yesterday over the constitutionality of National Security Letters and the gag orders associated with them. The EFF defended a lower court's ruling that NSLs are unconstitutional, while the DoJ defended a separate ruling that NSLs can be enforced. Whatever the court rules, the issue of NSLs is all but certainly headed for the Supreme Court in the not too distant future.

Comments

DOJ Oaths

[trikes57]

Didn't these guys have to take an oath to defend the Constitution?

Its time to add teeth to Oath Violations. Loss of job, loss of pension, jail time.
To argue that some silly law or court ruling overrides the First Amendment should be a criminal offense.

Re:DOJ Oaths

[mrchaotica]

To argue that some silly law or court ruling overrides the First Amendment should be a criminal offense.

Replace "First" with "Second", and your statement is still perfectly valid.

Yes, yes it is.

Nobody except moronic, hyper-partisan fuckwads (on "both[1]" "sides[2]") ever argued that the First and Second Amendments were mutually-exclusive, you know!

([1] in actual reality (as opposed to the Bizarro-world perpetuated by the propagandists we call "mainstream media") there are more than two points-of-view on any given issue, and they are not all equally valid.)

([2] the only way to be on a "side" is to blindly worship the totality of a party's platform instead of forming your own ideology. If that describes you, go tear up your voter registration card and then kill yourself, for the good of humanity.)

Re:DOJ Oaths

[LVSlushdat]

..... by the propagandists we call "mainstream media"

I keep wondering WHEN everyone is going to wake up and realize what "we call the mainstream media" has become the
defacto US Department of Propaganda.. We should call things by their correct and factual names.. The "mainstream media"
hasn't been the "4th Estate" in quite a few years...

Re:DOJ Oaths

[mi]

a lot of the second amendment people love to use their rights to intimidate people exercising their first amendment rights.

Citation, please? Enumerate two or three such cases — should not be difficult to do, if it really happens "a lot"... I'll wait. Thank you!

Re:DOJ Oaths

[mi]

Nobody except moronic, hyper-partisan fuckwads (on "both[1]" "sides[2]") ever argued that the First and Second Amendments were mutually-exclusive, you know!

Personally, even the few hyperpartisan fuckwards I know have never stated anything of the kind. Strawman much?

The problem, that leads many people to contrast the First and the Second Amendments, is not that they contradict each other — no one thinks so — but that we are reading them differently.

The First Amendment is read as liberally and all-encompassing, as the Jews read the prohibition to "cook lamb in the milk of its mother" — combining goat cheese with beef is Treif even though neither are sheep, and a goat can not possibly be the bull's mother. Read like this, the Amendment's right to "petition the government for redress of grievances" is understood as the right to any and all speech — including even production of pornography.

If instead we read the First Amendment the way we are told to interpret the Second, however, only the speech addressed to the government — and only for a redress of grievances — would be a right. Oh, and you'd have to go through a wait-period before opening your mouth. And you'll need a license to exercise that right too.

Re:DOJ Oaths

[NoKaOi]

Replace "First" with "Second", and your statement is still perfectly valid.

No, it's not the same thing at all. The 2nd specifies that it applies to a well regulated militia, so it doesn't actually apply literally to gun control, the question is if control violates the intent of it. The 1st, on the other hand, has the qualification of "congress shall make no law..." So any law granting authority for NSLs violates the constitution. In same cases the argument is made that something other than congress passing a law violates the intent of the 1st, but in the case of NSLs, the FBI uses various laws passed by congress as it's rationale, therefore any portions of those laws that do grant the FBI authority for NSLs is unconstitutional whether the 1st is taken literally or on its intent. Of course, that just applies to the disclosure portion. The purpose of the NSL is to force a search and/or seizure without a warrant, which is in direct violation of the 4th amendment.

Nowhere in the text of either the 1st or 4th amendments does it specify exceptions for suspected terrorism. This sort of thing is exactly what the Bill of Rights is meant to protect us against.

Re: DOJ Oaths

[kilfarsnar]

If there wasn't the second amendment, you can bet your bottom dollar that there would no longer be a first amendment. .. or any amendment for that matter.

Yeah, because it's all your guns that are keeping the government from censoring what people can say. Y'all crack me up. How did things work out for David Koresh, or Randy Weaver, or anyone else who thought they could defend themselves from armed government agents? Has the second amendment prevented the Feds from spying on everyone, or seizing people's property, or establishing free speech zones, or otherwise infringing on our rights?

Look, I support gun ownership. I don't own one myself because I do not feel it necessary. But I support the right of any law-abiding citizen to arm themselves if they feel the need. However, the idea that that right will prevent the government from doing anything it wants is pure fantasy. You are outgunned and outnumbered. If they want to get you, they'll get you sooner or later.

DONATE

[Kludge]

https://eff.org/

Re:DONATE

[mi]

Who are talking to? The people, who donated all their lunch monies to help Obama get reelected — so his Administration can defend this law from the EFF, and demand backdoors in personal electronics?

Like they haven't been warned by the Clinton Administration demanding the even worse kind of backdoor — they have...

Obama Administration

[mi]

In 2008 a pair of "New Black Panters" members were arrested for intimidating voters in Philadelphia. In due time they were sued by Bushitler's Department of Justice, which was about to win the case. Obama's Department of Justice, however, allowed the men to avoid any punishment.

I'm bringing this up to preempt any attempt to defend Obama DoJ current actions defending "Security Letters" by their "having to" defend a law. They don't have to. When they didn't feel like it, they dropped the ball and let several thugs walk free and unscathed. Today they do feel like it, they want to have this law and are earnestly defending it.

They may even win, but even if they lose, it will not be for lack of trying. Oh, and they want to keep a backdoor for themselves in your personal electronics too. Remember that if ever you have a difficulty deciding on who to vote for — a promise, that Democrats will improve your civil liberties, will be a lie.