Category Archives: The Bill Of Rights

Portions Of Patriot Act Declared Unconstitutional

Constitution, Individual Rights, Privacy, The Bill Of Rights, War on Terror

A Federal Judge in New York has ruled that key portions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional:

A federal judge struck down controversial portions of the USA Patriot Act in a ruling that declared them unconstitutional yesterday, ordering the FBI to stop its wide use of a warrantless tactic for obtaining e-mail and telephone data from private companies for counterterrorism investigations.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in New York said the FBI’s use of secret “national security letters” to demand such data violates the First Amendment and constitutional provisions on the separation of powers, because the FBI can impose indefinite gag orders on the companies and the courts have little opportunity to review the letters.

The secrecy provisions are “the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering, with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional values,” Marrero wrote. His strongly worded 103-page opinion amounted to a rebuke of both the administration and Congress, which had revised the act in 2005 to take into account an earlier ruling by the judge on the same topic.

Although a government appeal is likely, the decision could eliminate or sharply curtail the FBI’s issuance of tens of thousands of national security letters (NSLs) each year to telephone companies, Internet providers and other communications firms. The FBI says it typically orders that such letters be kept confidential to make sure that suspects do not learn they are being investigated, as well as to protect “sources and methods” used in terrorism and counterintelligence probes.

The ruling follows reports this year by Justice Department and FBI auditors that the FBI potentially violated privacy laws or bureau rules more than a thousand times while issuing NSLs in recent years — violations that did not come to light quickly, partly because of the Patriot Act’s secrecy rules.

While it’s unclear how well this will stand up on appeal, it’s good to see that there are at least some members of the Federal Judiciary willing to stand up against the derogation of the Fourth Amendment.

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com

That Sam Brownback Sure Can Draw a Crowd!

Church and State, Dumbasses and Authoritarians, Election '08, General, Humor, Individual Rights, Politics, Privacy, Religious Liberty, Reproductive Rights, The Nanny State

https://i2.wp.com/x7d.xanga.com/ee3c0210c0c32145919714/m108165385.jpg?w=860

This photo just warms my heart. Here we have the Christian Right’s dream candidate Sam Brownback drawing…let’s just say a less than impressive crowd in New Hampshire. Could it be that his vision of government imposed family values isn’t resonating even within the G.O.P.? Could this be a sign that maybe, just maybe the Christian Right is losing some if its control over the party? That would probably be too optimistic of an assessment but hope springs eternal.

Related:
Not Even to Save the Life of the Mother

Stephen Littau
http://fpffressminds.blogspot.com/

The Lost War On Drugs

Constitution, Individual Rights, The Bill Of Rights, The War on Drugs

Sunday’s Washington Post has an article which highlights the extent to which we’ve been fighting a losing war for 36 years:

Thirty-six years and hundreds of billions of dollars after President Richard M. Nixon launched the war on drugs, consumers worldwide are taking more narcotics and criminals are making fatter profits than ever before. The syndicates that control narcotics production and distribution reap the profits from an annual turnover of $400 billion to $500 billion.

And it’s not just criminal syndicates like the Mafia that are reaping the profits of the War on Drugs, terrorists are getting into the game too:

Poppies were the first thing that British army Capt. Leo Docherty noticed when he arrived in Afghanistan’s turbulent Helmand province in April 2006. “They were growing right outside the gate of our Forward Operating Base,” he told me. Within two weeks of his deployment to the remote town of Sangin, he realized that “poppy is the economic mainstay and everyone is involved right up to the higher echelons of the local government.”

Poppy, of course, is the plant from which opium — and heroin — are derived.

Docherty was quick to realize that the military push into northern Helmand province was going to run into serious trouble. The rumor was “that we were there to eradicate the poppy,” he said. “The Taliban aren’t stupid and so they said, ‘These guys are here to destroy your livelihood, so let’s take up arms against them.’ And it’s been a downward spiral since then.”

Despite the presence of 35,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, the drug trade there is going gangbusters. According to the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Afghan opium production in 2006 rose a staggering 57 percent over the previous year. Next month, the United Nations is expected to release a report showing an additional 15 percent jump in opium production this year while highlighting the sobering fact that Afghanistan now accounts for 95 percent of the world’s poppy crop. But the success of the illegal narcotics industry isn’t confined to Afghanistan. Business is booming in South America, the Middle East, Africa and across the United States.

In other words, the War On (Some) Drugs is putting money into the hands of the people who would use it to buy weapons that would kill Americans, at home and abroad. The War On (Some) Drugs is corrupting the very regime we’d hoped to put in power to replace the Taliban. And, it’s sacrificing the liberties of American citizens.

Think about it this way. If drugs were legal, the Taliban and Al Qaeda wouldn’t be profiting from their illegal production. If they were legal, street gangs in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, wouldn’t be profiting from their distribution. And, if they were legal, the  Fourth Amendment might just be a little more secure.

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com

All the “other” ones…

Constitution, Democracy, Dumbasses and Authoritarians, Individual Rights, Keep and Bear Arms, Politics, The Bill Of Rights, Theory and Ideas

I was inspried by comments from a friend yesterday, to think up a couple of “bumpersticker” type slogans in support of the second amendment.

Which do you think would make the better bumper sticker or t-shirt:

The Second Amendment: In case they “forget” the other ones

Or…

The Second Amendment: Defending the other ones since 1791

I had originally written “the other nine”, and I still think it sounds better, but it’s technically inaccurate since there are 27 amendments; even if most of those not in the bill of rights are essentially procedural in nature, not necessarily related to fundamental rights and liberties…

…Well that, and the fact that I’m fundamentally opposed to a lot of the amendments outside of the bill or rights, either in principle, in detail, in structure, or in language… including some amendments that a minarchist like myself might be expected to support

Why?

Well, let’s go though them. I oppose:

  • the 15th, 19th, and 24th amendments: Because they were unnecessary.

    Once slavery was made unconstitutional by the 13th amendment, then all citizens who were of age (21 at the time), of all races, sexes, backgrounds, prior conditions of servitude etc… should have automatically and clearly been allowed to vote under the 14th amendment, without any requirement for literacy or taxes.

    Any construal of the 14th amendment to the contrary, or any state laws to the contrary, should have been struck down by the supreme court under the 14th (and in fact they have been ever since. The 15th and 19th are generally ignored, and the 24th is usually invoked with dubious justification).

  • the 16th Amendment: Because it establishes a de-facto slavery to the government.

    Some taxes are of course necessary, however taxes on incomes, earnings, wages, and assets are fundamentally theft or slavery.

    Additionally, the 16th amendment was never properly ratified, and was enacted fraudulently; and has since its enactment been enforced fraudulently as well, because it authorizes taxes on income not on wages.

    Income, earnings, and wages are three different things by law and by centuries of precedent, but our government has chosen to treat the 16th amendment as if it authorizes all three. A tax on wages is involuntary servitude without compensation, the very definition of slavery.

  • the 17th amendment: Because it fundamentally unbalanced our federated system of checks and balances between state and federal power, in favor of the federal government to the harm of the interests and powers of the states and the people.

    The house of representatives was meant to represent the interests of the people as individuals, and the senate was meant to represent the interests of each state. This is why representatives are apportioned by population, but senators are apportioned two per state; and why senators were meant to be selected by the government of each state as they saw fit.

    We were founded as a representative federated republic; and direct election of senators has essentially removed the middle out of those three; much to the detriment of our nation; moving us closer and closer to a simple republic (which in a nation of our size, with such diverse interests geographically, would be an unmitigated disaster)

  • the 18th and 21st amendments: Because they address an issue that is not properly a matter of law, but of morality. Passing the 18th amendment was against the principles we founded our government on, and should never have happened. The 21st therefore shouldn’t have happened either.

    Additionally, the 21st established in blackletter law the ability for the states to make their own prohibitions, which shouldn’t have been a matter for the federal constitution to address, unless it was to prohibit such state laws to be made.

  • the 22nd amendment: Because term limits are also fundamentally wrong under our system of government.

    If the people are stupid enough to elect a scumbag over and over again; so long as that scumbag hasn’t been disqualified by unlawful actions, then they should be able to run as often as they like.

    In engineering (and in the military, which share a similar mindset towards problem solving), this type of law has a saying about it: this is a technical solution to a non-technical problem (also called a hardware solution to a software problem and other variations)

    The problem is that the people are electing people they “shouldn’t.” The solution is not to make electing those people illegal; it’s to educate the electorate better so they won’t want to elect people they shouldn’t.

  • the 23rd amendment: Because the District of Columbia either IS a state, or it is not; you can’t have it half way.

    Giving DC representation in congress, electors in presidential elections, or any kind of position on the national stage is ridiculous. We don’t allow New York City to have electors separate from it’s state government, why would we allow Washington to do so.

    This is not disenfranchisement, this is clearly a structural issue. A single city should not be given the status of a state in any way. We should either leave DC without representation (including in elections), give it back to Maryland, or make it a state, with all the attendant rights and responsibilities of the people within.

  • the 27th amendment: Because it is not a structural issue, which is what the constitution and it’s amendments are intended to address.

    Congress has the power to set it’s own rules, and it’s own policies, procedures, and compensation under article one section six. There is nothing in the constitution which prevents them from changing those rules once established.

    This amendment was essentially grandstanding by politicians saying “see, we’re so committed to “good government” and “reform” that we can’t vote ourselves a pay raise without an election; and we’ve even passed a constitutional amendment to prove it”.

    I would have no issue with this amendment if it were simply a matter of law and congressional procedure. It should never have been proposed or passed as an amendment.

So, of the 17 amendments after the bill of rights, 10 of them are unnecessary, badly worded, badly written, or just plain wrong.

Man… all that from thinking about bumper stickers.

Chris Byrne
I am a cynically romantic optimistic pessimist. I am neither liberal, nor conservative. I am a (somewhat disgruntled) muscular minarchist… something like a constructive anarchist.

Basically what that means, is that I believe, all things being equal, responsible adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want to do, so long as nobody’s getting hurt, who isn’t paying extra

http://anarchangel.blogspot.com
1 … 28 29 30 31 32 … 38