Bringing Back the 4th Amendment... PATRIOT Provisions Found Unconstitutional

[Jubelum]

With all of the bad news we are continually treated to... at least there are sometimes small beacons of hope that our Republic can survive in this new order.


Federal judge rules 2 Patriot Act provisions unconstitutional
(http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/26/patriot.act/index.html)
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
-Judge: Search warrants issued without showing probable cause
-Attorney seeks ruling after being wrongly linked to '04 Madrid train bombing
-His suit says secret searches of house, office violated Fourth Amendment rights
-As part of suit settlement, he retained right to challenge parts of Patriot Act

... "Judge Aiken, in striking down the challenged provisions of the Patriot Act, has upheld both the tradition of judicial independence and our nation's most cherished principle of the right to be secure in one's own home," they said in a written statement. "We are relieved that the Bill of Rights can be honored and preserved even in times of perceived crisis."

Aiken ruled that FISA, as amended by the Patriot Act, permits the government to conduct surveillance and searches targeting Americans without satisfying the probable-cause standard in the Fourth Amendment.

"Prior to the amendments [to FISA], the three branches of government operated with thoughtful and deliberate checks and balances -- a principle upon which our nation was founded," Aiken wrote.

But the Patriot Act, she said, eliminated "the constitutionally required interplay between executive action, judicial decision and Congressional enactment."

"For over 200 years, this nation has adhered to the rule of law -- with unparalleled success. A shift to a nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised," she wrote.

As it turns out, sometimes the best way to dispose of bad laws is to enforce them vigorously. Hopefully the days of secret, no-knock search warrants and the PATRIOT Act walking all over our privacy are starting to wane. We can hope, can't we?

Thoughts?

[SpamSandwich]

It's a start... a Ron Paul presidency would help a lot.

[tonton]

It's a start... a Ron Paul presidency would help a lot.

Too bad it would devastate the poor and most of the middle class.

[franksargent]

It's a start... a Ron Paul presidency would help a lot.

http://www.blog.churchwebstop.com/wp-images/jesus_rapture.jpg

You'll have to wait for the 2012 POTUS election! But he'll have to remain unshaven and wear his bathrobe at all times! :rolleyes:

[iPoster]

Thoughts?

http://i21.tinypic.com/10pc9z6.jpg

About time!

Too bad it would devastate the poor and most of the middle class.

This.

[@_@ Artman]

Save the party hats until it gets to the Supreme Court, which sadly these days, I don't have a lot of faith in.

Still...I don't get to use this much...

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/applause.gif

:)

[Fellowship]

It's a start... a Ron Paul presidency would help a lot.

Amen Brother:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za78ZGmVErs


Fellows

RON PAUL 2008

[audiopollution]

Ron freakin' Paul.

Is it just me who's sick of seeing his name already?

This is going to be a long long long campaign. :(

The worst thing is that we've got a provincial election going on up here and likely a federal election in a few months. Coupled with the US election, if I have to listen to another news report on poll results, I'm going to become a hermit.

[trumptman]

Tonton is just allowed to say unsubstantiated things. This is especially true if they straight up attack and allow him to disregard someone he doesn't care to think or learn about.

Nick

[tonton]

What makes you say that?

Mostly because he's against social programs and for a flat tax.

[Jubelum]

Can you explain how this "would devastate the poor and most of the middle class"?

By cutting their taxes, of course. Devastating! :lol:

(I should have known this thread would be off topic within five posts.)

[tonton]

And against a minimum wage as well.

Flat tax. Fewer social programs. No minimum wage. That's devastating to the poor. No question about it.

[tonton]

If you don't know it's a fact that flat tax screws the poor then you're either too stupid to understand the principles behind it or too far in denial to let yourself believe them.

In the last decade, the ratio between minimum wage and average CEO wage has multiplied a hundredfold. Most of this has resulted in decreased benefits. Imagine what would happen if the minimum wage were cancelled.

[Jubelum]

It's OK to disproportionally tax the rich, but not the poor. Ask everyone in the country to pay the same portion of their income in taxes? Well, that's crazy talk. Equality is the left wing gold standard- until it comes to progressive income taxes. The successful must be punished. If everyone paid the same 18%, they we'd all suffer equally for the benefits we receive from government.

[tonton]

It's OK to disproportionally tax the rich, but not the poor. Ask everyone in the country to pay the same portion of their income in taxes? Well, that's crazy talk. Equality is the left wing gold standard- until it comes to progressive income taxes. The successful must be punished. If everyone paid the same 18%, they we'd all suffer equally for the benefits we receive from government.

You see, what you don't understand is that the already successful have the POWER. And that's what spreads the wealth gap.

"Rich get richer and poor get poorer" is not fiction.

[SpamSandwich]

http://www.blog.churchwebstop.com/wp-images/jesus_rapture.jpg

You'll have to wait for the 2012 POTUS election! But he'll have to remain unshaven and wear his bathrobe at all times! :rolleyes:

I think you have him confused with George "Make-Mine-Armageddon" Bush.

[SpamSandwich]

Ron freakin' Paul.

Is it just me who's sick of seeing his name already?

This is going to be a long long long campaign. :(

The worst thing is that we've got a provincial election going on up here and likely a federal election in a few months. Coupled with the US election, if I have to listen to another news report on poll results, I'm going to become a hermit.

Barack freakin' Obama, Hilary freakin' Clinton, etc....

Hey, anytime the "news" goes on at great length about the so-called frontrunners, it makes me sick to my stomach. Same goes for the ranters and ravers who love to bitch and cry on these forums, yet they offer no real answers and their candidates are pitching the same old garbage.

Time to leave the nest babies and learn to fly!

[Fellowship]

You see, what you don't understand is that the already successful have the POWER. And that's what spreads the wealth gap.

"Rich get richer and poor get poorer" is not fiction.

The funny thing is.... I have been to France and seen poor people begging in the streets as well. Riding subway trains in the metro to pass time etc.

And the French state is pretty near Bankrupt. I do not think there is evidence to show that bloated social services to anything to lift the poor out of being poor.

Just look at the projects around Paris on the outskirts.

France is known for all their safety net programs. Yet when I was there I saw extreme contrast between Rich and Poor...

I love France but for people like tonton and ShawnJ to depend on government to solve all is just silly.

" French Prime Minister Francois Fillon on Monday warned that the country's public finances were in a "critical" state and that drastic action is needed.

"We had a 1.15 billion deficit at the end of 2006," Fillon told RTL radio. "The situation is critical."

Fillon said that France had not had a balanced budget "since 1974".

"Any company head, any head of a family, any farmer understands that we cannot continue to borrow to finance operating expenses," he said.

Fillon warned Friday that the French state was nearing bankruptcy because of the many assistance programmes that it finances."

http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/france/20070924-france-fillon-economy-public-finances-critical-state-prime-minister.html


Fellows

[SpamSandwich]

Imagine what would happen if the minimum wage were cancelled.

I have. I can see this happening and a whole new generation of small businesses would be born! Businesses would actually fight to get back into America! The ground floor for people starting their careers would be more flexible, businesses would save money what with us being in a competitive global environment, prices for just about everything would drop... and (under a Ron Paul presidency) the IRS would be abolished. I have imagined it, and it looks pretty good.

[SpamSandwich]

He's for abolishing most of the executive agencies too-- which is utterly perplexing in its scope given how much authority Congress has delegated to the administrative agencies over the years. We won't be able to get anything done if Congress has to do everything itself (which I think is pretty clearly his aim).

My God, some of you guys just don't get it.

"Wherever you have an efficient government you have a dictatorship."
-Harry S. Truman

[iPoster]

I have. I can see this happening and a whole new generation of small businesses would be born! Businesses would actually fight to get back into America! The ground floor for people starting their careers would be more flexible, businesses would save money what with us being in a competitive global environment, prices for just about everything would drop... and (under a Ron Paul presidency) the IRS would be abolished. I have imagined it, and it looks pretty good.

That's a good imagination you've got there! Paying their workers less would naturally be good for the businesses...but what about the workers??

:rolleyes:

(I certainly wouldn't argue with abolishing the IRS, though my vote would be for a National sales tax rather than a flat tax)

[Fellowship]

Imagine what would happen if the minimum wage were cancelled.


Germany has no minimum wage and the country seems to get by...

Neither does Finland

Did I mention Sweden? They also do not have a minimum wage set by law.

Fellows

[SpamSandwich]

That's a good imagination you've got there! Paying their workers less would naturally be good for the businesses...but what about the workers??

:rolleyes:

(I certainly wouldn't argue with abolishing the IRS, though my vote would be for a National sales tax rather than a flat tax)

I'm in favor of more people owning and running their own businesses. More responsibility, more accountability, more efficiency.

[sammi jo]

Wow.. this thread got derailed by the 2nd post! That has to be close to a record, even for this board!

Anyway, has anyone here ever read the Patriot Act? Probably no more than the members of Congress who voted for it without any clue as to its contents. There was but one copy available of the Patriot Act for congressional representatives to read, some 600 pages... and the ensuing "debate" was in the early hours, when very few were in attendance. One of the only Congressmen who bothered to look at it was Dennis Kucinich, who scan-read it, saw the gnarly stuff, and thus voted against. Of course, he was excoriated in the media for his "anti-American" stance. :wow::no::rolleyes:

Since when has trashing the Constitution, on the basis of lies and fearmongering, been regarded as "patriotic"? Here's another out of numerous examples of Orwellian doublespeak which has become de rigeur in the last 6 and a bit years.

[Jubelum]

Since when has trashing the Constitution, on the basis of lies and fearmongering, been regarded as "patriotic"?

September 11, 2001. 9am Eastern.

Here's another out of numerous examples of Orwellian doublespeak which has become de rigeur in the last 6 and a bit years.

Oh, no, dear child... that Orwellian doublespeak has been in place for decades now... as far back as the late 60s and the genesis of the PC movement. Postmodern and post-structural thinking helped muddy the waters as well...

Just look at the names of the bills that our "leaders" vote for... then look at what the bills really do. Like this "ethics" bill. Or the "border security" bill. The "Great Society". The "War on Drugs". The "War on Poverty" and the War on __________. Whatever we declare war on only gets worse as time goes on. Maybe we should have a War on Freedom to make sure freedom goes on forever.

You are correct that no one read the PATRIOT Act. If it had been read and debated, the American people would have never stood for such outrageous things. More or less gutting the Bill of Rights.

Such is the "problem, reaction, solution" treadmill to hell that we are on. :no:

[FormerLurker]

The "War on Drugs". The "War on Poverty" and the War on __________. Whatever we declare war on only gets worse as time goes on. Maybe we should have a War on Freedom to make sure freedom goes on forever.
Good stuff, but you seem to have left out the "War on Terror" for some reason.

[Jubelum]

Good stuff, but you seem to have left out the "War on Terror" for some reason.

The War on Terror will ensure the same result. Guaranteed. 8-)

[Jubelum]

Perhaps the solution is much less power and money for government in the first place.

... a post after my own heart... :D

[sammi jo]

September 11, 2001. 9am Eastern.

Hmm.. considering that large swaths of the framework to the Patriot Act were drafted well before that day.. and outside of our borders, in the UK, of all places..... 9/11 provided the "justification" for such extremist, authoritarian legislation, and had the "Patriot" Act been presented in the absence of such an incident, House members would have recoiled in horror and disgust (well, most of them...), and thrown it into the Potomac, alongside the detritus, where it belongs.

Oh, no, dear child... that Orwellian doublespeak has been in place for decades now... as far back as the late 60s and the genesis of the PC movement. Postmodern and post-structural thinking helped muddy the waters as well..

Just look at the names of the bills that our "leaders" vote for... then look at what the bills really do. Like this "ethics" bill. Or the "border security" bill. The "Great Society". The "War on Drugs". The "War on Poverty" and the War on __________. Whatever we declare war on only gets worse as time goes on. Maybe we should have a War on Freedom to make sure freedom goes on forever.

I wasn't meaning that such deception originated with this Administration, of course... I acknowledge that it has always been there. The Reagan and Clinton Administrations were masters of doublespeak.. but under the current Bush regime, Orwellianisms have multiplied like maggots on a pile of dogshit on a hot summers day.

You are correct that no one read the PATRIOT Act. If it had been read and debated, the American people would have never stood for such outrageous things. More or less gutting the Bill of Rights.

As I said, without 9/11, it wouldn't have stood a snowball's chance in the Saudi Desert.

Such is the "problem, reaction, solution" treadmill to hell that we are on. :no:

Now that is so true.

[midwinter]

The PATRIOT Act is a perfect example. It is the next step (though sadly not even the final step) that is justified by exactly that thinking. That some rights are just not absolute. They are given and taken away at the pleasure of the state as the need arises. Suddenly you find yourself on the receiving end of a search warrant (or probable cause) for being a "terrorist", denied bail for said "terrorist" actions (or thoughts or words) and ultimately convicted and sent to jail for it. Or maybe we'll just skip the convicted part and go straight to jail.

Or you're Jose Padilla, who, regardless of his recent conviction, was completely denied his constitutional rights for years. Meanwhile, John Walker Lindh gets a speedy criminal trial.

[Gon]

Germany has no minimum wage and the country seems to get by...

Neither does FinlandThat's incorrect. We have something worse than a clear cut minimum wage mandated in law. We have a law that says minimum wage must be paid. The amount of minimum wage is determined in a complicated, undemocratic, multi-step process that involves agreements between unions, employer associations, government officials and if no agreement applies then the law says the wage must be "reasonable".

The socialists did this. One can argue Finland didn't have a choice. We had decades of socialist rule, because a conservative government - even if better representative of the people - was sure to result in bad relations with Soviet Union, and like some feared, an invasion like in Checkoslovakia. The social democrats were a lesser evil, shutting hardcore communists out of politics and unions. During those decades the social democrats built up a great power base, turned over a great deal of power from democratically elected representatives to those unions they are/were in bed with, and thus cemented themselves as the largest party.

With the passing of the Soviet Union and that particular threat, the socialists have went into a nosedive. They are no longer the biggest party, and have shed their principles and become centrist in their quest to hold onto power. They are rudderless and have nothing to fight for. We almost elected a non-socialist president last time. Had the socialists not given so much of everyone's power to the unions, they'd be sunk already. Of course, these days it's more of a case of the unions telling the weak socialist party what to do, not vice versa.

Hopefully we'll someday be able to wipe the pile of manure that is the minimum wage law off the books, or at least revise it to be more like that of the US.

[Fellowship]

That's incorrect. We have something worse than a clear cut minimum wage mandated in law. We have a law that says minimum wage must be paid. The amount of minimum wage is determined in a complicated, undemocratic, multi-step process that involves agreements between unions, employer associations, government officials and if no agreement applies then the law says the wage must be "reasonable".

The socialists did this. One can argue Finland didn't have a choice. We had decades of socialist rule, because a conservative government - even if better representative of the people - was sure to result in bad relations with Soviet Union, and like some feared, an invasion like in Checkoslovakia. The social democrats were a lesser evil, shutting hardcore communists out of politics and unions. During those decades the social democrats built up a great power base, turned over a great deal of power from democratically elected representatives to those unions they are/were in bed with, and thus cemented themselves as the largest party.

With the passing of the Soviet Union and that particular threat, the socialists have went into a nosedive. They are no longer the biggest party, and have shed their principles and become centrist in their quest to hold onto power. They are rudderless and have nothing to fight for. We almost elected a non-socialist president last time. Had the socialists not given so much of everyone's power to the unions, they'd be sunk already. Of course, these days it's more of a case of the unions telling the weak socialist party what to do, not vice versa.

Hopefully we'll someday be able to wipe the pile of manure that is the minimum wage law off the books, or at least revise it to be more like that of the US.


Thank you for your insight into this subject. I would like to say I am always open to being corrected if I am off on a subject. I appreciate your information and clarification.

I got my info from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_country

I now better understand the situation with your help. Thank you

Respectfully,

Fellowship

[tonton]

Ahoy, there, S.S. Lollipop.

Under your ideas Utah would have harems in every rich Mormon's home, half the red states would execute gays and adulterers by stoning to death, California would become the richest state in the nation selling marajuana to foreign countries and the Florida panhandle would reintroduce slavery. Well done. :err:

The problem with libertarianism is it's one step away from anarchy.

[franksargent]

Ahoy, there, S.S. Lollipop.

Under your ideas Utah would have harems in every rich Mormon's home, half the red states would execute gays and adulterers by stoning to death, California would become the richest state in the nation selling marajuana to foreign countries and the Florida panhandle would reintroduce slavery. Well done. :err:

The problem with libertarianism is it's one step away from anarchy.

Don't you mean S. S. Lunaticia? :D

My sentiments exactly. Quaint three century old philosophy, kind of like wanting to be Amish, except it has no monotheistic deity!

In fact, I hope Ron "Dr. No" Paul (nee Ron "Rapture" Paul) runs in '08 as an independent (nee Libertarian), and that he takes all his "followers" with him on election day. That way even if Alfred E. Newman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_E._Newman) ran for POTUS for the D's they'd easily win going away ( e. g. The Rapture Man as a spoiler like Perot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot#1992_presidential_candidacy) or Nader (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader#Presidential_campaigns)). :lol:

[midwinter]

I see what you did there. I wonder if anyone else notices it.

Well, it's obvious. The Florida panhandle wouldn't be able to operate as an autonomous region!

[Jubelum]

(You down with O.P.P? Yeah you know me)

:lol: I shot 7up out my nose. Thanks a lot.

[@_@ Artman]

(You down with O.P.P? Yeah you know me)

Naughty by Nature (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5678748766465753819)? :???: :smokey:

[midwinter]

Since you two are digging all around the Social Contract tree, y'all probably oughta be a little clearer about what you mean by words like "rights," "freedoms" and "privacy."

[SpamSandwich]

P.S. I thought "liberalism" was about liberty. I guess things have changed.

That hasn't been the case in our lifetimes.

Libertarianism... that's a different matter. :D

[SpamSandwich]

Don't you mean S. S. Lunaticia? :D

My sentiments exactly. Quaint three century old philosophy, kind of like wanting to be Amish, except it has no monotheistic deity!

In fact, I hope Ron "Dr. No" Paul (nee Ron "Rapture" Paul) runs in '08 as an independent (nee Libertarian), and that he takes all his "followers" with him on election day. That way even if Alfred E. Newman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_E._Newman) ran for POTUS for the D's they'd easily win going away ( e. g. The Rapture Man as a spoiler like Perot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot#1992_presidential_candidacy) or Nader (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader#Presidential_campaigns)). :lol:

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." -Mohandas Gandhi

I guess that would put Ron Paul squarely in the "laugh at" and "fight" parts in your book... next up... winning.

[midwinter]

Right - legal or moral entitlement to do or refrain from doing something or to obtain or refrain from obtaining an action (from Wikipedia...seems simple enough to start...of course what the rights are is more complicated for some)...some, the natural rights folks, say we're born with some and that they aren't granted by anyone (e.g., the state)

Freedom/Liberty - the ability to act according to your own will...without restraint (again starting with Wikipedia)...I'd add so long as you don't infringe upon another's like liberty/freedom...do you have a "right" to freedom/liberty? I think yes.

I think your notion of "Freedom" is troubled by your intrusion into it of Utliitarian principles. You have it correct—at least for someone like Rousseau—up until you start saying that I can't force my will upon someone else. That's not freedom. That is the freedom to do whatever I want mixed up with the right—those freedoms given to me by the state—to behave in a certain way. In short, you don't have a "right" to freedom. You are born free to do whatever you want to do. You give up that complete freedom to the state, and then agree as a people what "rights" the state will dole back to you, in order to obtain a social security.

I'm up to my ears in working on the history of privacy at the moment, so I'll deal with that later.

[midwinter]

Not sure I agree.

These things necessarily connect and conflict (e.g., freedom and right to life, self, self-determination) and it seems a pretty reasonable and natural deduction that your freedom to do whatever you want ends where that action starts to intrude upon, minimally, my right to myself and my life. Put more colloquially, your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose. Right?

That is a Utilitarian principle. What I'm saying is that for Rousseau (and Locke, too), the social contract works like this: man is born free to do whatever the hell he wants. Bash people in the head. Be nice. Run over old ladies. Live in the woods and stockpile guns. Whatever you like. But that doesn't work very well, people doing whatever they want, because you wind up with people stockpiling guns and other people whacking other people in the head. It's not safe. And you wind up with some bloke who gets lots of guns and winds up doing something like naming himself King or something, and before you know it, you have lots of people who've been so oppressed for so long that there's really no way out of it. I mean maybe they can amass enough power to make that king sign some kind of document giving up some of his power over the people, but that's pretty rare. I mean, seriously, who votes themselves out of power (except Lords in 1832)?

So, for Locke and Rousseau, what people do is this: they say, "OK. Clearly, this whole do whatever you want to do business doesn't work well. What we ought to do is agree that we're going to give up, entirely, the natural freedom we have. All of it. Every. Single. Freedom. And in exchange, we'll agree, as a society, which of those we should get back in the form of 'Rights.'"

In other words, you can't talk about "freedom" and "rights" interchangeably. They are two different things. One is "natural." One is the product of the social contract.

We should probably talk about "property," too. As you rightly note, that's a pretty complex topic,