In Memoriam

[jgraz]

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, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[mikelgb]

1. R.I.P constitution

rest in pieces

[truedelphi]

2. But at least we have our GUNS to make it a shootout when they come for us! n/t

[gorfle]

38. Indeed.

Every time I read stuff like this (original message) it makes me glad I have them, and wonder how much more pushing we'll take before we have to start shooting.

[pollo poco]

53. We are outgunned

They won't let us buy the weapons that would give us parity.
They laugh while we debate. Militia indeed!

[gorfle]

60. Tell that to the Iraqis.

They won't let us buy the weapons that would give us parity.

You don't need tanks to stand up to tanks. Ask the Iraqis.

[pollo poco]

64. Point gladly taken n/t

[pipi_k]

65. What would give us parity...

I honestly believe that if the government saw the populace as a threat, we'd all be declared "terrorists" and nuked or poisoned into submission.


That's why it doesn't matter to them how many guns we have....

Truly scary

[JuniperLea]

72. Bingo!

That is exactly what would happen. And all those "immigration detention facilities" would be filled with American citizens... and a lot of DUers.

[bdamomma]

39. they will take those guns away too, and it won't be the Dems to take them away.

[The Backlash Cometh]

44. Boy. The Republicans saw where this was going before we did.

Take away all our freedoms, except for the one. Do you think they're trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy?

[Wizard777]

45. The republicans are priming the country for a civil war. I say we give it to them.

[DFW]

56. The way things are going, you might get your wish.

Not a pretty picture, but we will shoot back. We are not Grenada.

[peacebird]

3. the ACLU is taking this to court. Is the bill legally flawed enough to be overturned?

anyone know?

[jgraz]

5. With this SCOTUS? Who can say.

I guarantee it will be overturned by any sane justice.

[defendandprotect]

51. In fact, our SC is an embarrassment throughout the world ....

Who could possibly trust anything they do after 2000?

Didn't set a "precedent" . . . yeah it did . . . for corruption of our system of justice!

[MrCoffee]

8. My worst nightmare...Anthony Kennedy deciding on the fate of the 4th

:scared:

[Tafiti]

20. No doubt.

I'd have to look into past decisions to gauge his views on Executive power, but I'd like to think he'd side with sanity. At least he believes in global warming.

It would be a true test of Scalia's dedication to a textualist view of the Constitution - seems to me the FISA bill is clearly at odds with a plain reading of the text. It'd be interesting to see how he twirls his way around it.

[HughBeaumont]

28. I trust any member of the Filthy Five as far as I can throw them.

[MrCoffee]

29. Scalia could write the opinion overturning this law in his sleep

IF the national security argument doesn't sway him.

Kennedy is the one with delusions of grandeur. His pompous bullshit bombast these days is repulsive. Harry Blackmun, he ain't.

[Tafiti]

61. Agreed.

Say what you want about Scalia, but he's generally a hell of an opinion writer. I wouldn't be shocked at all, really, if he sided against it. He usually pushes the national security argument, but IIRC, it's generally within the context of Executive power, which is left wide open for interpretation in the Constitution. The text of the 4th, OTOH, is quite clear.

Kennedy is just completely unpredictable. He has no coherent Constitutional philosophy, and takes positions willy-nilly.

[DireStrike]

47. "Reasonable"

"It's reasonable to protect blah blah blah"

[Tafiti]

62. Re: "reasonable"

That argument could plausibly be made if the text ended at "...shall not be violated." However, the 'shall not be violated' but upon probable cause, supported by...et al., effectively defines reasonableness. So it's really an issue of probable cause, not reasonableness.

[Phillycat]

22. Oh fuck, STOP IT.

:cry:

[ElboRuum]

63. Should be...

...but when you have jackholes like Cheap Justice Thomakennescalitoberts, I can imagine them basically saying "yes" to as much surveillance as we can stomach and more that we can't. The Constitution is only as safe as the people guarding it allow it to be.

Cheap Justice Thomakennescalitoberts. I like this as a nifty shorthand for the conservative wing of SCOTUS.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. But..but..it's protecting "The Home of the Brave and the Land of the Free".

Makes one wonder who's going to protect us from pathetic politicians all too willing to sell our freedoms so they can be seen as "tough" and parade their flag-pins.

[peacebird]

6. One country, Under surveillence.....

[BigBearJohn]

11. Wow. That gave me chills to the bone. That will be my new signature. Thanks.

[peacebird]

13. it did the same to me first time i heard it, right after the "patriot act" was signed...

[Papa Boule]

24. Yeah, chilling n/t

[eridani]

14. More like the home of the nervous bedwetters with itchy trigger fingers n/t

[barbtries]

7. we'll get you back!

somehow, some way, some day, 4th amendment...we will get you back.

[jgraz]

10. Someone needs to tell Democrats that the 4th amendment is to core to Roe v Wade.

No 4th Amendment, no right to privacy.

[defendandprotect]

54. Interesting, eh . . . ????

There are probably tons of religous fanatics who'd be willing to surrender all rights

to privacy in order to knock over Roe vs Wade . . . !!

[slipslidingaway]

9. K&R... from the ACLU

ACLU Urges Senators to Oppose Unconstitutional Surveillance Bill

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/35897prs20080708.html

"...“After two and a half years of outrage over warrantless wiretapping and an ever-expanding executive branch, it’s untenable that Congress would be on the verge of sanctioning the lawless behavior of the Bush administration. The ramifications of this legislation are enormous. No president should have this power.

“Congress is poised to strip the courts of their authority and, in doing so, not only frustrate citizens but eviscerate the Fourth Amendment and the constitutionally mandated separation of powers. Americans have been making their voices heard by calling and emailing their senators. So our question to the Senate is: Are you listening? We do not want the government in our living rooms.

“Though there are several amendments being offered that would improve this bill, the most important vote cast will be that of final passage. There must be as many ‘no’ votes as possible. Senators need to remember that not only is America watching, but history is as well. The legacy of the 110th Congress should not be that of bowing to and granting vast spying powers to the executive branch. Senators must step back and either fix this unconstitutional bill or vote it down.”



http://www.aclu.org/images/general/asset_upload_file711_35907.pdf

July 7, 2008

Re: Opposition to the FISA Amendments Act, H.R. 6304

Dear Senator:

"As organizations that are deeply committed to both civil liberties and effective
intelligence-gathering, we strongly urge you to oppose the FISA Amendments Act, H.R.
6304. This bill unreasonably and unnecessarily authorizes broad surveillance of
Americans’ international communications without meaningful Fourth Amendment
protections: no individualized warrant issued by a court, no determination of probable
cause of wrongdoing, and no specification of the location or means of the surveillance..."


American Civil Liberties Union
Bill of Rights Defense Committee
Bob Barr 2008 Presidential Committee
Bob Barr, Former Congressman
Center for American Progress Action Fund
Center for National Security Studies
Common Cause
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Equal Justice Alliance
Fairfax County Privacy Council
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Government Accountability Project (GAP)
International Association of Whistleblowers (IAW)
Justice Through Music
League of Women Voters of the United States
Libertarian National Committee
Liberty Coalition
MAS Freedom
National Lawyers Guild--National Office
OMB Watch
OpenTheGovernment.org
People For the American Way
Privacy Lives
Republican Liberty Caucus
The Multiracial Activist
The Rutherford Institute
U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation
Velvet Revolution

[BigBearJohn]

12. Ja wohl, mein Führer

[AmyCamus]

15. This is about Obama's FISA vote?

I thought we had to support our nominee here.

[jgraz]

16. Support, not worship

There's a difference. Some DUers don't understand that, but there is a difference.

[exothermic]

17. And some people forget these clowns work for US, not the other way 'round.

:grr:

[bdamomma]

40. maybe we should tell them that forcefully.

[dflprincess]

27. Just because I'm voting against McCain

doesn't mean that I support the candidate we're stuck with. I was never thrilled with the presumed nominee, but I was prepared to support him (not just vote against the other guy) up until the moment he violated his oath of office and voted to kill the Fourth Amendment.

[MrCoffee]

30. Presidential contender v. sitting US Senator

or did he quit his day job to run?

[jgraz]

31. Not sure what your point is here.

It might be obvious, but I haven't had my coffee yet. :boring:

[MrCoffee]

32. Do you want me to spell it out for you???

:rofl: I'm kidding.

I was trying (and clearly failing) to say that Senator Obama is still a US Senator, and as such, should be as vulnerable to criticism for his actions in the Senate as any other Senator.

He's the nominee, and we should respect that. But he's also a Senator, and I think we should expect Senators to respect the Constitution.

[jgraz]

33. I'd also expect our nominee to respect the Constitution

Even more so, if that's possible.

[MrCoffee]

34. That's trollish thinking, jgraz

Freeper bastard. Why do you want McCain to win? :cry:

[jgraz]

59. I've been accused of worse.

Seriously, you're not even close to the most extreme reactions I've received for simply sharing information about this bill.

[JuniperLea]

73. I'm shocked!

Really? You are one of the most staunch Obama supporters here! Really? Oh man.

[debunkthelies]

46. "AMEN!!"

Too often people tend to admire, then to worship those they admire.
I support Obama and admire him but, I also believe the first Commandment; Thou shalt worship no other Gods nor graven images etc. etc. nor burning Bushies, OOPS My, Bad :spank: :rofl:

[Breeze54]

76. YES SIR!! I MUST 'TOW THE LINE".. SEIK HEIL!!!

:silly:

[DearAbby]

18. ...

:cry: I have no words...I feel betrayed.

[Straight Shooter]

19. I'm sick of fighting for things that the writers of the Constitution assured us were our rights.

I cannot F'ing believe we're even having to go through this, with Democrats complicit in this evisceration of our fundamental rights as U.S. citizens.

Osama bin Laden is laughing his tall a** off. He finally won.

[bdamomma]

41. Osama was very proud of the Mujhadeen took down the Soviet Union too

but in this case we have the Bush terrorists taking down our own country, the enemy is within.

[orleans]

21. my deepest sympathy. n/t

[Kermitt Gribble]

23. Farewell

They're tearing the Bill of Rights apart piece by piece and very few of us care.

[RufusTFirefly]

25. Gen. Hayden tipped us off that this was coming...

Remember when Hayden just refused to admit that the Fourth Amendment includes the phrase "but upon probable cause"? The incident was appalling and frightening. Had it not been obvious beforehand, this made it clear that we had fallen into the rabbit hole and entered a nightmarish Wonderland, where words only exist when BushCo says they do.

Here's a video of the exchange
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGhcECnWRGM

And here's FAIR's account of the incident

The subject came up when reporter Jonathan Landay of Knight Ridder attempted to preface a question by stating that "the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures." Hayden interjected: "Actually, the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure. That's what it says."

Landay politely corrected him, saying, "But the measure is 'probable cause,' I believe." But Hayden insisted: "The amendment says 'unreasonable search and seizure.'" When Landay continued, "But does it not say probable--" he was interrupted by Hayden, who said, "No.... The amendment says 'unreasonable search and seizure.'"

Probable Cause for Alarm

If you watch and listen carefully, you can almost always see it coming.

[lonestarnot]

26. Goodbye!

Is it revolution yet?

[kpominville]

35. Where were you people for the Patriot Act?

Why are some people acting like this is anything new?

[jgraz]

36. So now that we live in a police state, you're willing to accept any outrage?

Nice to know who'll be first in line for the camps.

[Indenturedebtor]

42. Actually everyone here was freaking out and making calls

During the last round of Patriot Act revisions, and I'm sure they were before that as well.

If I kick you in your dangly bits three times do you forfeit the right to protest the third time? :shrug:

[Bake]

55. Uh, we were HERE. Unlike you.

Bake

[emilyg]

37. Kick.

[DrDan]

43. hogwash

hogwash, I say

[The Blue Flower]

48. Abolishing an amendment

It seems to me that the FISA bill in fact abolishes the 4th amendment, thus altering the Constitution. There are rules that must be followed in order to alter the Constitution. They didn't follow those rules, so the bill can't be valid.

[MrCoffee]

49. It doesn't abolish the 4th

Every law Congress passes must be measured against the Constitution. Hypothetically, Congress could pass a law mandating that every US citizen convert to Catholicism. The law wouldn't abolish the 1st Amendment, it would just violate it.

[The Blue Flower]

50. I mean that they have de facto abolished it

nt

[jgraz]

58. No, they've abolished it.

Just wait until the legal challenges get to the desks of Kennedy, Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas.

[Redstone]

52. Ah, the late lamented Fourth Amendment. How fondly we'll remember it.

Redstone

[dogindia]

57. kick....someone in the,,,,you know

[Imagevision]

66. Bush already pardoned himself if he was charged with war crimes

[Pastiche423]

67. Bye bye HOPE and CHANGE

[MasonJar]

68. The ACLU has a real test at the Supreme Court and not because of the

merits of its case against the bill.

[Breeze54]

69. Error: you can only recommend threads which were ...... A pic tribute

I tried but I can give it a :kick:!

Thank You!!

[Uncle Joe]

70. Kicked, too late to recommend.

Thanks for the thread, jgraz.

[JuniperLea]

71. I baked a cake for the wake...

[Breeze54]

75. Very nice and you're so talented too!

:P

[Lord Helmet]

74. so vote for somebody else then and quit bashing the nominee

[JuniperLea]

77. It's already been established that "Love It or Leave It" is...

A GOP meme... you shouldn't use it here. In fact, it's against the rules to encourage anyone here to vote for "somebody" else... seeing as how the only other "somebody else" is McCain.

[Lord Helmet]

79. I would have to give a crap who any of you vote for first, which I don't

but this is supposed to be a message board that supports the nominee .... I guess I read the rules wrong or something

[JuniperLea]

81. I don't think you read them at all eom

[Breeze54]

78. Stop being so hysterical!!!!

[Lord Helmet]

80. acting bungholey and stirring up shit seems to be your M.O.

[sniffa]

82. I thought I was in GD, not GD:Fisa

[AtomicKitten]

83. Hey jgraz.

I agree with what you are feeling. The FISA bill was a steaming pile of shit. Period. I absolutely and completely agree with your righteous anger over this.

Silver lining: Even Feingold says its fixable.

I feel I would like to explain my zen view of this and to assure you I'm not cheerleading knowing you'll think that anyway ;) but here goes: I am exhausted internalizing my outrage over the last eight years. What seems like ages ago I finally accepted that Gore was not stepping back into the ring :( and I then did some calculations and set my sights on Obama. Not because I agree with him on everything because I surely don't, but I knew he could beat Hillary (he did!) and that was HUGE. I know he can win this. And his coattails are wide and that means a filibuster-proof Congress is possible.

And here's where I have decided to just go with the flow, for now. I know all the arguments against this, but I've set my mind on this and it just has to happen. He must win in November; the alternatives does not compute.

From a purely strategic POV: Obama didn't have the numbers for a filibuster so, and I know you disagree with me on this but I'm hoping you'll mull it over a bit anyway, I think he made the smart move strategically. I am convinced having read his books that this is purely strategic and not ideologic, and that finer point matters, to me.

This campaign and all that is going on is a genuine spectacle. This administration's pants are starting to fall down around their ankles. If Conyers makes Rove squeal like a pig, that would be worth seeing and a half.

Amazing times, but I am hopeful. Oh dear, there's that word again. I guess after these eight long-ass years, my outrage is on full-tilt and I'm redirecting my outlook.

Anyway, cheers.

[Breeze54]

85. No! Feingold said he HOPES it's fixed, it should be fixed... he didn't say it would be fixed!

After the FISA Fight: An Interview with Sen. Russ Feingold

http://www.motherjones.com/interview/2008/07/fisa-telecom-immunity-bill-russ-feingold-interview.html

Interview: Why did some Democrats cave to the administration's wiretapping demands?

"A constantly pulsating fear of being accused of being soft on terrorism."

By Brian Beutler, The Media Consortium

July 10, 2008

snip-->

MJ: What's the fix? Is there one? And when?

RF: Hopefully, under President Obama he will acknowledge, as he has in the past, not only how outrageous this immunity is — although that's gonna be very hard to deal with because the horse may already be out of the barn — but I think, even more importantly, he will have an opportunity to review these very expanded powers that are given to the government to surveil our international communications. And to say, look, we need legislation that has some sort of court review and mechanisms for control of this, because it's completely lawless. It's much harder to pass something and change it after the fact.

But I'm hoping we'll have both houses (of Congress) and I'm hoping Obama will understand how important this is. And that will be a golden opportunity for him to correct one of many things that needs to be corrected from this administration. So I'm hoping it starts as early as January 20th.

More....

He's hoping... that is all. :(

[tyedyeto]

84. It died with DUI checkpoints, camera speeding tickets, etc

This bill is just a continuation of the further erosion of our rights as citizens of the United States.