Statement of Ron Paul on H.R. 5104[Protect America Act of 2007][FISA]

House.gov ^ | 30 Jan 2008 | Ron Paul

[mnehring]

The question above is not US Citizens, it is non-Citizens. The bill above, and Paul's quote, specifically states that if citizens are to be tapped, that still requires a FISA warrant. Paul's own quote: "..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 ."
You are attempting to change the exact point. Not gonna play your game.

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.

[roofgoat]

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.

[jmc813]

You all act like Paul is the perfect translator of the Constitution and everything must be weighed against his interpertation.

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?

[Dead Corpse]

You are attempting to change the exact point. Not gonna play your game.

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.

[Dead Corpse]

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.

[mnehring]

FISA is given a path in there to side-step this.

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.

[Dead Corpse]

Warrants are issued by a Court. The Act Paul is talking about puts said Warrant power in the hands of the Director.

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.

[jmc813]

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.

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?

[Dead Corpse]

Yep. Damn straight I do. If a few folks are too stupid to follow Cooper's Rules, then pay Darwin his due as these people will invariably be a liability in other areas as well.

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.

[mnehring]

Warrants are issued by a Court.

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.

[Dead Corpse]

Like I said,

So yeah, it is in fact an expansion of Federal power absent Amendment. No matter how you try and spin it.

[jmc813]

You know post 48 was oozing with sarcasm, right?

[mnehring]

How is that an expansion of federal power, it follows the fourth amendment correctly, a warrant is issued. Paul is reading into it that the warrant can only be issued by a bench judge, that is not stated in the Constitution. On the contrary, the Constitution doesn’t limit what type of judge issues it. Sounds like Paul is the one who needs an amendment to change the Constitution to define a limitation on what type of judge issues a warrant.

[Dead Corpse]

Yep...

[Dead Corpse]

Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

It doesn't say "director". It doesn't say "administrator". It says "Court" and "courts".

[mnehring]

(side note: and people wonder why I post on Paul threads a lot, we have a lot more 'meat' conversations than on other threads..)

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.

[Dead Corpse]

If Congress establishes an agency or a head with Administrative Law responsibility, does that not follow the Constitutional requirement.

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.

[MarcoPolo]

You can put me on your pinglist too.