Posted on 11/23/2002 9:50:14 AM PST by forest
As the 107th Congress comes to a close, it has the dubious distinction of probably becoming the most anti-freedom Congress in 60 years. Not since Roosevelt forced his unconstitutional "New Deal" programs through Congress and intimidated the Supreme Court into accepting the central government socialist concept for the United States have more ominous anti-freedom bills passed Congress. Most freedom not usurped by the Roosevelt programs, and their subsequent additions over the years, will be usurped by a combination of bills sometimes called the "Patriot Act" and the recently approved Homeland-Security bill.
As Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) politely lamented on the floor of the House, "these new power grabs are being rushed through Congress without giving members the ability to debate, or even properly study, this proposal."
Unlike Rep. Paul, we do not have to be polite about this negligence in Congress. Besides the reorganization of large parts of government, dozens of new laws were promulgated and thousands of regulations will follow. Yet, no one in the House had more than an hour to read (forget about study) the bill before it came up for a vote.
Over in the Senate, which they sometimes advertise as the Greatest Deliberative Body in the World to cover up their negligence, the 490 page bill sailed through yet again -- unread by any Senator. The bill was brought to the Senate just two days before the vote. It was not discussed in any committee and floor discussion was but a perfunctory activity that allowed a few Senators to pose for the cameras. The bill's passage was such a forgone conclusion many Senators didn't even show up for work that day.
To say that such action is total negligence would be a serious understatement. If our Constitution is the law of the land, passage of the so called Homeland Security bill is a violation of that law and a direct violation of their oath of office.
Money talks in Washington. So, what we saw is that lobbyists instructed members of the Congressional class to insert clauses to protect their major campaign contributors. However, the American people have no freedom lobby on Capitol Hill. So, Congress again felt free to trash the (previously) unalienable rights of the average American citizen.
Worse, without comment, Congress allowed the Department of Defense -- this time the Navy -- a general search warrant to computerize all personal and financial information about all people living in the United States. Called by some the "supersnoop provision," the Homeland Security bill allows the federal government to track the e-mail, Internet use, travel, credit-card purchases, phone and bank records of all people in the U.S. as part of its hunt for terrorists. So, like George Orwell's Big Brother government in the novel "1984," the Navy decided to take advantage of the new law. They are calling this major Constitutional violation the "Total Information Awareness program." We call it an illegal invasion of privacy.
So, here's a major news flash for Congress, the Department of Defense and the Navy: The Fourth Amendment reads in part, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . . " The "shall not" part are the operative words there. No law, rule or regulation can overrule those words. Only a Constitutional amendment would suffice.
The words of the Fourth Amendment are very easy for all to understand. That is also the current law of the land. Therefore, we expect all government officials to honor them one-hundred percent. No exceptions. Else, they are in intentional violation of the law and must be treated accordingly -- and prosecuted accordingly.
As anyone in government who can read must already know, we do not come by this opinion unilaterally. The United States Supreme Court has recently simplified search rules and banned the use of high-tech equipment for warrantless searches.
For instance, in Kyllo v. U.S.(1), the Court said that if the average person can see something illegal in or around a home while driving (or flying) by, that information may be used in court. However, "no equipment not available to the average person" may be used by police without a search warrant:
"We think that obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical 'intrusion into a constitutionally protected area,' constitutes a search -- at least where (as here) the technology in question is not in general public use. This assures preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted. On the basis of this criterion, the information (Footnote 2) obtained by the thermal imager in this case was the product of a search."
In Footnote 2, Justice Scalia writes: "The fact that equivalent information could sometimes be obtained by other means does not make lawful the use of means that violate the Fourth Amendment."
As the Court instructed: "At the very core of the Fourth Amendment stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion. . . . The Fourth Amendment's protection of the home has never been tied to measurement of the quality or quantity of information obtained. In Silverman, for example, we made clear that any physical invasion of the structure of the home, 'by even a fraction of an inch,' was too much (365 U.S., at 512), and there is certainly no exception to the warrant requirement for the officer who barely cracks open the front door and sees nothing but the nonintimate rug on the vestibule floor. In the home, our cases show, _all_ details are intimate details, because the entire area is held safe from prying government eyes."
Therein the Court winds it up by ordering: "We have said that the Fourth Amendment draws 'a firm line at the entrance to the house,' (Payton, 445 U.S., at 590). That line, we think, must be not only firm but also bright -- which requires clear specification of those methods of surveillance that require a warrant."
There's even more, though. In United States v. Drayton(1) the Court said that when a citizen clearly states to an officer that they do not wish to participate in a police fishing expedition, the officers must then leave that person alone. If police do not back off, the citizen's Fourth Amendment rights start to kick in. Or, in the legal jargon of the Court:
"The Court has rejected in specific terms the suggestion that police officers must always inform citizens of their right to refuse when seeking permission to conduct a warrantless consent search.(3, 4) While knowledge of the right to refuse consent is one factor to be taken into account, the government need not establish such knowledge as the sine qua non of an effective consent. Nor do this Courts decisions suggest that even though there are no per se rules, a presumption of invalidity attaches if a citizen consented without explicit notification that he or she was free to refuse to cooperate. Instead, the Court has repeated that the totality of the circumstances must control, without giving extra weight to the absence of this type of warning."(5)
We find, therefore, that some provisions in the Patriot Act and many provisions of the Homeland Security Act were known to be unconstitutional even before the bills were passed. We also see that the Department of Defense -- in this case the Navy -- is knowingly and intentionally violating the Constitution and those participating should be charged as such.
Furthermore, as stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in "Drayton," a simple notification to any police officer that we wish to "opt out" of any of their fishing expeditions is all that is legally necessary.
So, let me be the first: This is public notice that I do not wish to participate in any government database and/or part of any police fishing expedition. And, to the best of my ability, I shall not.
-----------------------------
1. <http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/99-8508.html>
2. <http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/01-631.html>
3. Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 3940 (1996)
4. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218, 227 (1973)
5. Schneckloth, supra; Robinette, supra, at 3940
END
If our Constitution is the law of the land, passage of the so called Homeland Security bill is a violation of that law and a direct violation of Congress's oath of office. Campaign donors were protected.
The Total Information Awareness program is a major 4th Amendment violation called supersnoop.
In Kyllo v. US and US v. Drayton SCOTUS protects the 4th. Therefore, whoever voted for the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Bill have violated their Oath of Office and should go to prison.
To call that a misrepresentation is "a serious understatement". This bill was passed by the house and has been on the table (shelved) and in the media for months.
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/794587/posts>.
My apologies to the Breaking News readers for clicking that item here. The Breaking News is Hillary with her 1200 FBI files being appointed to run shotgun for the Democratic War Machine.
Please do NOT comment on that thread here. Go there.
Thanks,
Forest
I don't remember the details, but I'm pretty sure Ron Paul also briefly aligned himself with the anti-war people early in the war on terrorism, or at least flirted with them. He may have some interesting positions and an appealing foundation to his ideology, but I think he's prone to going over the edge as well.
Think back to when we were children. The consensus was that war was always a last resort, and only happened every generation or so. Now we have a TV war every other year or so. This bothers me greatly.
History shows that great societies can't seem to avoid over militarization, which usually becomes a factor in their downfall.
Justice Antonin Scalia, Mack vs US., June 27, 1997
Learn to read before you try to think.
My military guides my understanding as well.
Anyone who has been engaged in international affairs and didn't have that question answered within weeks or even days of 9/11 wasn't morally grounded. Anyone who couldn't see that the nature of this war required unprecedented broad authorization was in over their head.
I think history would show that great nations collapse more frequently from undefended wealth and moral confusion rather than from militarization justified with moral clarity.
And with the left's work on eroding that moral clarity and opposing us at all angles, that we've spoken of, I don't worry about us being too sure of ourselves and developing a pattern of overstepping that purpose, at least not now.
Once in a lifetime wars are likely far beyond what we're now preparing for in terms of relative militarization and loss of American lives. We'd need 40 million rather than 2 million under arms to be in the same league with WWII. Perhaps rather than coming once in a generation, after we've waited too long to confront genocidal maniacs and cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of American draftees, wars will erupt once or twice a decade like this and cost the lives of hundreds of volunteers.
Then learn to read before you "note" as well. Your approach to me was idiotic and belligerent. I think it was you that a few months ago I told not to post to me again. If not, consider it told to you now. I don't argue with barking dogs.
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.