Posted on 01/30/2008 2:50:09 PM PST by BGHater
A bill to extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 30 Days
Madame Speaker, I rise in opposition to the extension of the Protect America Act of 2007 because the underlying legislation violates the US Constitution.
The mis-named Protect America Act allows the US government to monitor telephone calls and other electronic communications of American citizens without a warrant. This clearly violates the Fourth Amendment, which 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, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The Protect America Act sidelines the FISA Court system and places authority over foreign surveillance in the director of national intelligence and the attorney general with little if any oversight. While proponents of this legislation have argued that the monitoring of American citizens would still require a court-issued warrant, the bill only requires that subjects be "reasonably believed to be outside the United States ." Further, it does not provide for the Fourth Amendment protection of American citizens if they happen to be on the other end of the electronic communication where the subject of surveillance is a non-citizen overseas.
We must remember that the original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed in 1978 as a result of the U.S. Senate investigations into the federal government’s illegal spying on American citizens. Its purpose was to prevent the abuse of power from occurring in the future by establishing guidelines and prescribing oversight to the process. It was designed to protect citizens, not the government. The effect seems to have been opposite of what was intended. These recent attempts to “upgrade” FISA do not appear to be designed to enhance protection of our civil liberties, but to make it easier for the government to spy on us!
The only legitimate “upgrade” to the original FISA legislation would be to allow surveillance of conversations that begin and end outside the United States between non-US citizens where the telephone call is routed through the United States . Technology and the global communications market have led to more foreign to foreign calls being routed through the United States . This adjustment would solve the problems outlined by the administration without violating the rights of US citizens.
While I would not oppose technical changes in FISA that the intelligence community has indicated are necessary, Congress should not use this opportunity to chip away at even more of our constitutional protections and civil liberties. I urge my colleagues to oppose this and any legislation that violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
The question should be, do non-Citizens have Constitutional Rights?
If yes, you'd better be able to show EXACTLY where in the Constitution the FedGov was explicitly given this power. Be sure to provide the proper citations.
If no, Paul is wrong.
Republicans have become just as dangerous and delusional as Libs. Just tell them that the Govt is fighting terror and they will give up their freedoms no questions asked.
God forbid RP wants to stop Total Govt Control of our lives. What a loon he is.
Not at all. He's just a hell of a lot better than almost anyone else at this point. Can you honestly tell me that George Bush, for instance, has a clearer interpretation than Paul?
Not at all. Nor did I expect you to answer directly and simply. Again, you attempt to spin it...
The question should be, do non-Citizens have Constitutional Rights?
No. They don't. Paul points this out.
But US Citizens DO. FISA is given a path in there to side-step this. That is what Paul, and anyone who has read up on the Constitution, should object to.
If the government was serious about stopping crime and terror in one swoop, it’d be encouraging Citizens to work with local law enforcement to ARM and train everyone.
How is FISA a side step? The fourth amendment clearly states: 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.
How exactly is a FISA warrant unConstitutional? A FISA Warrant is a warrant, issued due to probable cause, describes the place (albeit virtual) persons, and things to be seized. In this case, the seizure is information, not a physical object.
and places authority over foreign surveillance in the director of national intelligence and the attorney general with little if any oversight.
Further, it lowers the scrutiny standard.
So yeah, it is in fact an expansion of Federal power absent Amendment. No matter how you try and spin it.
But, but, do you realize how many "young people" die because of firearms each year? Do you really want your next door neighbor having assault weapons such as machine guns?
In the long run, "too stupid to use basic self defense tools" and "too stupid to not get shot while committing crimes" will be removed from the gene pool.
The fifth amendment doesn't state a warrant must be issued by a court, only that it must be issued. By legal definition, a warrant must only be issued by a judge. There are several types of judges, including an administrative law judge, (which would apply in the Director's case), bench judge, judge advocate, etc, etc.. Not all judges are bench judges that work out of a courtroom. Some, like Administrative Law Judges, can be assigned the role for a specific field of specialty, for a specific agency. Administrative Law Judges are not under court subjection but under agency subjection.
So yeah, it is in fact an expansion of Federal power absent Amendment. No matter how you try and spin it.
You know post 48 was oozing with sarcasm, right?
Yep...
It doesn't say "director". It doesn't say "administrator". It says "Court" and "courts".
Now back to the topic.
and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish...The question then comes into play as what is an inferior court and how does it apply in this case.. Congress established the agencies in question and did also establish the rule of Administrative Law Judges. If Congress establishes an agency or a head with Administrative Law responsibility, does that not follow the Constitutional requirement. Again, it does not specify only bench judges or civil courts. The legal definition of an inferior court is just one that is accountable to a higher legal authority, be it the USSC, Common Pleas Courts, or legislative body. In other agencies, such as the FTC, Administrative Law Judges are accountable to both Congress, the DOJ and the USSC- by this definition, they serve in the role of inferior court.
I would argue "no". Not just because of this argument, but because that logic would then lead to agencies like the BATFE, DEA, NEA, ect... writing their own warrants should their Department heads hold a law degree or a Bar membership.
It violates separation of powers IMO and grants too much power. I want smaller more Constitutional government, not "work around's" to make things bigger.
You can put me on your pinglist too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.