"Easy on the Patriot Act, Raleigh"

[DarkPhenyx]

Wether or not you agree with it this is an interesting op-ed piece. Give some good history.

Resolving not to cooperate with the feds would nullify democracy

http://www.newsobserver.com/print/wednesday/opinion/story/1294971p-7417066c.html

<on edit> fine I'll do it this way damnit!

Faced with the imminent prospect of war and potential insurrection in 1798, Congress adopted several laws, known to us as the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts, to enhance the federal government's powers to respond to the national security threat.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison protested the acts by authoring and ensuring the adoption of two state resolutions asserting the ability of state governments to judge for themselves the constitutional validity of acts of the federal government, and to refuse compliance with legislation deemed incompatible with that document. In particular, these Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions urged non-cooperation with the Alien and Sedition Acts on the grounds that they violated the Bill of Rights.

<snip>

Today, there is a great deal of consternation regarding civil liberties implications of the USA Patriot Act, a package of law enforcement and national security provisions adopted in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks to enhance the federal government's ability to counter the terrorist threat. By one count, 284 municipal governments have adopted resolutions alleging that the Patriot Act violates the Constitution. To the extent that these actions are intended to contribute to the democratic discussion of the propriety and need for the Patriot Act's particular provisions, they are a welcome development.

<snip>

A substantial number of the resolutions, however, contemplate a kind of devolutionary judgment of and non-cooperation with federal law strongly reminiscent of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. The Raleigh City Council is currently considering one such resolution, which maintains that city employees should refuse to cooperate with federal investigations wherever they deem them to violate provisions of the Bill of Rights or the state constitution, and urges the state government to do the same.

[democracyindanger]

1. Broken link

you have one too many "http"s :)

[DarkPhenyx]

2. Well crap.

Let me go fix it then.

Now why didn't it work when I tried to make the text the link? How annoying!

[democracyindanger]

5. And now that I've read it

The guy makes some valid points, and you're right in that there's some interesting history, but he's saying, in effect, that American citizens' only remedy is to vote the supporting legislators out of office. It's on the books, so we have to abide by it--and any official protest by states or municipalities is antithetical to a constitutional democracy.

His point of view, I take it, is that the legality of the Patriot Act can only be questioned at particular intervals, i.e. certain Novembers. He doesn't address the damage caused to American citizens' civil rights in the mean time. Apparently, those whose rights are violated will just have to be patient. And although the Patriot Act "is a product of constitutionally created legal processes," there are plenty of examples where such a 'product' was inherently unconstitutional, and should have never been implemented.

Raising the use of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolution by separatists is interesting, but because some racists used them to defend their views doesn't mean the protests shouldn't have been made. But I'm a member of the ACLU, so I'm a little biased. ;)

[DarkPhenyx]

6. And the argument that we should do nothing...

...except to vote them out is a bit lame. However I do think his point has merit as a cautionary tale. We can already see the States taking action to outlaw homosexual marraige. It isn't beyond the pale that if, against all odds, the Fed determines that HM is legal that they would uses this sort of tactic to ignore the ruling.

[democracyindanger]

7. Yes, as a cautionary tale

I think it works. He goes beyond that, but it's important to remember that every action has a reaction. Take a look at the 'Free Speech Zones' employed by Bush--remember that these started as a way to protect abortion clinic employees and patients from anti-choice protestors.

The real value of the anti-Patriot Act, um, acts is that it increases the pressure on a final, complete evaluation of its constitutionality. I think/hope that once that happens, the public will choose civil liberty over fear.

I agree with you that this tactic would be used to defy HM legality; but if, in the twisted, hateful event that an FMA is passed, we could use it to defy that.

[Benhurst]

3. Wrong. Democracy was nullified by the Felonious Five of the

United States Supreme Court who created Bush's Banana Republic.

[DarkPhenyx]

4. It can be nullified by both.

One does not preclude the other. Are you attempting to completely discount the possible lessons of history and denigh that there are some potential downsides to this sort of legislation?

[depakid]

8. This guy is a pretty ignorant lawyer

How he made it though law school, I don't know... he misses such a fundamental point about many provisions of the so called Patriot act that I have to wonder whether Duke deserves its reputation.

Congress cannot override the Constitution, the Bill of rights or years of well settled Supreme Court precedent via Federal Law.

People like this fool (and others, including some far right judges) may have no problem granting them the power to do so, but that doesn't mean that they have the right. Moreover, my suspicion is that civic officials (as well as this Duke grad- if he ever passed the Bar) have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. I know I did.

If so, it seems to me that Raleigh's council has not only the prerogative but also the duty to refuse to enforce blatantly illegal laws that are a far greater threat to our "Constitution's national democratic process" than the any of the instances of terrorism he cites.