REP BARNEY FRANK DELAYING DOJ'S ANTI-TERRORIST NEEDS FOR ANOTHER WEEK!!!!

US HOUSE ^ | 09-24-01 | Registered

[Registered]

Barney Frank says WE CAN WAIT ANOTHER WEEK SO THEY CAN "WORK AS A COMMITTEE" TO CRAFT AN ANTI-TERRORIST BILL THAT ALL CAN LIVE WITH. CONCERNED ABOUT "RELEASE OF INFORMATION" being inappropriately disclosed. Probably worried about his own "exposures".

[CheneyChick]

Thimpwy wepwehenthible.....

[VOYAGER]

Barney Frank is a blow hard and the only way he can get attention is to blow harder.

[CompassionateLibertarian]

I say, "Barney, welcome to the Freepers."

This site is about defending the Constitution. My impression is that the anti-terrorism bill would take a hatchet to the Constitution.

The powers that the Justice Department is asking for today to fight terrorism might tomorrow be used against people who fail to correctly fill out social security forms for their nannies, or against people who work for companies that lack the tree-huggers' seal of approval, or against whoever may be unpopular at some given moment.

My guess is that we would fight terrorism more effectively by strictly limiting the purposes and uses for surveillance by the government.

Just because Barney Frank is against rushing this through does not make me for it. My guess is that on this issue Barney Frank and Dick Armey are on the same side.

[WIMom]

Bingo!

[Iwo Jima]

It's just about the most basic aspect of Constitutional law. The Constitution speaks of "the people" or "no person" or similar terms. The Constitution does not grant any rights; what it does is recognize that the Creator has endowed every human being with certain natural, inalienable rights. If you are a human being, you have these rights. But for our United States Constitution to protect you, you have to be in this country. It's really just that simple.

[2ndMostConservativeBrdMember]

So you're saying that according to the Constitution anyone "in" this country can take advantage of any of the Constitutional provisions including voting for President? Your theory does not hold water.

[Rockitz]

I hope there is a seizure clause, like there is for drug crimes.

[Iwo Jima]

No disrespect meant, but it is difficult to hold an intelligent conversation with someone who is so obviously lacking in basic constitutional knowledge as yourself. When the Constitution means to apply citizens, it uses the term "citizen." But most all of the time the words "people" or "person" is used. And the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches or seizures applies to everybody present in this country, even Osama bin Laden if he has managed to sneak in.

BTW, citizens don't vote for president. We vote for electors who vote for president. The qualifications of voters are set by Congress and the respective states, except for the 26th Amendment, which gives the right to vote to 18 year olds.

[SunnyUsa]

"It seems to me that because of today's technology (disposable phones, etc) that this is a necessary and reasonable modification to the laws. I am amazed how many people can be manipulated by the Dems into thinking that their civil rights are at risk. "

Really well said!!!

Wish you would've been there with ASHCROFT and his team who had to endure C O N Y E R S and Barney today!

The funniest was the shot of C O N Y E R S speaking and MAXINE's nasty mug in front of him (gave me awful flashbacks from impeachment)

I watched with interest what BARNEY's point was, and it seemed to me he was talking almost about some "personal fear" he has.... He was apprehensive about LEAKS about what would be picked up (unrelated to criminal activity etc)

His priorities were just not in the right place or appropriate, his concerns mostly being about what if something's leaked and also he wanted to make sure there are remedies for the "criminal" (innocent) cough...to go after the federal government....

Are these people EVER on the SAME PAGE as the rest of AMERICA?????

[Dr. Thorne]

Like vultures smelling blood, those who would leave America helpless so that they can pursue every decadent activity swoop onto any thread that seemingly supports any anti-terrorist activity.

This website continues to fill with whack-jobs and conspiracy nuts.

[marajade]

Yeah I think it is. You didn't answer my question: have you ever typed a search warrant? You just can't fill in the blanks.

[mrustow]

Like a broken clock, even Barney Frank is right twice a day -- in spite of himself!

[CheneyChick]

I watched with interest what BARNEY's point was, and it seemed to me he was talking almost about some "personal fear" he has....

Maybe it's because he has many deep dark dirty little secrets that he's afraid will be brought to light.....

[2ndMostConservativeBrdMember]

Article IV Section 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

[Iwo Jima]

No, I have never typed a search warrant. But I have read the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Given the distressingly low level of Constitutional knowledge, understanding, and appreciation exhibited by yourself and others on this thread, please allow me to repeat it here.

"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." [Emphasis added.]

The Supreme Court has held, long ago, that a warrantless search (with few exceptions, none of which are relevant here) is by definition an unreasonable search and therefore unconstitutional. And the Constitution is clear that the government cannot get a warrant to just search generally whatever location the suspect is found (or whatever phone or line he happens to be using). It is clear that you do not like these Constitutional provisions, but they are the law and you should respect them. I not only respect them; I lke them. They are good rules for a free people. But if you disagree, start a movement to amend the Constitution. Don't just cavalierly advocate its wholesale violation.

Thank goodness there are good congressmen such as Tom Delay, Dick Armey, Ron Paul, and many others who will hopefully marshall the votes to stop Ashcroft's misguided efforts. But if they fail, then we can count on the Supreme Court led by Justices Thomas and Scalia to stop this travesty.

[terilyn]

One thing that the new law will do that the old one didn't is that the FBI can request permission for a wiretap on a person suspected of doing something illegal vs a phone line. Right now they often have to get permission from more than one judge - takes time & it's stupid. If I am suspected of being a hijacker, the FBI must go to the judge in district where I work to get permission to tap my phone at work, then to the judge in the district where I live to get permission to tap my home phone.

[Brian Allen]

On this one, it looks as if Barney Frank, the ACLU [Bastard offspring of the Communist Party of America -- Shudder ...] and I shall all be on the same side.

Ain't American politics grand?

[Iwo Jima]

Just like I said, when the Constiuton wants to say "citizen," it does so. But when it says "people," as it does in the Fourth Amendment (see above post), then it applies to any person.

This is not "my theory." It is unassailable, long-standing, constitutional law, at least 100 years old. I don't have time to debate anything as cut-and-dried as this point. You get the last word, because I won't be responding to your non-intelligent comments.

[concerned about politics]

Isn't that bill to allow marrage privleges to gays going to go through Washington this week?????? Sounds like BLACKMAIL, Barney.
Offer the gays special sex benefits, or the terrorist win!

[mrsmith]

"doubt that it changed very much "

Barney made the statement that they'd changed it as part of his attempt to get Ashcroft to wait a week.

I think he said they made "several" changes.