The Bill Of Rights Archives - Page 31 of 38

Category Archives: The Bill Of Rights

Bush And Congress Expand Warrantless Wiretaps

August 6, 2007 Doug Mataconis Constitution, Individual Rights, Privacy, The Bill Of Rights, The Surveillance State, War on Terror

On Sunday, President Bush signed into law a new bill that greatly expands the ability of the Federal Government to eavesdrop on international communications without a warrant:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 — President Bush signed into law on Sunday legislation that broadly expanded the government’s authority to eavesdrop on the international telephone calls and e-mail messages of American citizens without warrants.

Congressional aides and others familiar with the details of the law said that its impact went far beyond the small fixes that administration officials had said were needed to gather information about foreign terrorists. They said seemingly subtle changes in legislative language would sharply alter the legal limits on the government’s ability to monitor millions of phone calls and e-mail messages going in and out of the United States.

They also said that the new law for the first time provided a legal framework for much of the surveillance without warrants that was being conducted in secret by the National Security Agency and outside the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that is supposed to regulate the way the government can listen to the private communications of American citizens.

“This more or less legalizes the N.S.A. program,” said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington, who has studied the new legislation.

Previously, the government needed search warrants approved by a special intelligence court to eavesdrop on telephone conversations, e-mail messages and other electronic communications between individuals inside the United States and people overseas, if the government conducted the surveillance inside the United States.

Today, most international telephone conversations to and from the United States are conducted over fiber-optic cables, and the most efficient way for the government to eavesdrop on them is to latch on to giant telecommunications switches located in the United States.

By changing the legal definition of what is considered “electronic surveillance,” the new law allows the government to eavesdrop on those conversations without warrants — latching on to those giant switches — as long as the target of the government’s surveillance is “reasonably believed” to be overseas.

In other words, what was once an illegal Executive Branch operation is all nice and legal now.

Just wonderful.

Doug Mataconis

http://www.belowthebeltway.com

One Man’s Freedom of Expression is Another Man’s Hate Crime

August 1, 2007 Stephen Littau Church and State, Constitution, Crime and Punishment, Dumbasses and Authoritarians, Founding Fathers, Free Speech, Freedom of the press, General, Government Regulation, History, Individual Rights, Legal, Media, Political Correctness, Politics, Property Rights, Religious Liberty, The Bill Of Rights, Theory and Ideas

We seem to have strayed a long way from our valuing of free speech, perhaps best stated by Voltaire “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” In this age of political correctness, both the Right and the Left has bastardized the idea of free speech to a more politically correct attitude: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend your right to say it until someone else is offended.”

As I was driving in to work, I caught a couple of segments of The Mike Gallagher Show (a show I do not normally listen to). Gallagher brought up a case which happened at Pace University where a 23 year-old man by the name of Stanislav Shmulevich allegedly threw a Quran in a toilet on two separate occasions. The university originally reported the crime as an act of vandalism but later decided to report the act to the NYPD as a hate crime instead. I assumed that Gallagher would go on to criticize this as political correctness run amok but to my astonishment, he said that treating this act as a “hate crime” was completely appropriate. Gallagher went even further to say that certain acts such as desecrating a “holy book” (regardless of the faith), the American flag, or burning crosses should all be exempt from First Amendment protection. In his view, there are just some things which should be held sacred; those who commit “crimes” against what he or others consider “sacred” should be punished criminally.

Gallagher’s arguments got even weaker from there. Several callers challenged him on this notion and Gallagher would ask questions like (paraphrasing) “Should we consider it free speech when someone paints swastikas on a Jewish person’s home?” and “What about burning a cross in the lawn of an African American, is that free speech?” Perhaps his most absurd example was whether or not a person dressed in Nazi uniform goose stepping in a Jewish neighborhood should be protected by the First Amendment.

All of these questions can be easily answered if only we go back to the basic idea that each individual has the natural rights of life, liberty, and property (“your freedom ends where my nose begins”); nowhere in our Constitution is there a right to not be offended. Painting swastikas on a Jewish person’s home or burning a cross in an African American’s yard are both violations of these individuals’ right to property, and therefore, the perpetrator should be prosecuted on those grounds.

So, what about the racist bastard goose stepping in a Jewish neighborhood? Assuming the idiot does so on public property, s/he is protected by the First Amendment. Being an anti-Semitic moron, while infuriating to most sensible people, is not a crime nor should it be.

One could argue that these above acts would be acts of intimidation and could warrant criminal prosecution (certainly in the first two examples would be prosecutable without “hate crimes” laws, the last example would still be a bit of a stretch) but I fail to see how desecrating a book which some people deem as “holy” even rises to this standard. There’s no question that desecrating a holy book is offensive to a great majority of people, but a crime? Thomas Jefferson found fault with much of the Bible and therefore proceeded to physically cut and paste the portions of the Bible that he found to be authentic to create his own interpretation of the Bible and discarded the rest. References to the virgin birth, the resurrection, angels, and other miracles were all omitted from the Jefferson Bible. Clearly, if someone like Gallagher knew of someone doing something like this today, he would regard this person as a hate criminal.

The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to protect speech that can be and often is offensive to the sensibilities of a person, a group, or even a majority. Popular speech does not need to be protected nearly as much. I might not like it if someone chooses to burn an American flag, desecrate a copy of Ayn Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness, or wishes to write terrible things about me on a post I have written but unless such an individual does these things without threatening my life, liberty, or property, I have to put up with these things. It’s the price I pay for living in a free society and a price I am quite willing to pay.

Cross posted here at Fearless Philosophy for Free Minds

Stephen Littau

http://fpffressminds.blogspot.com/

Adequately Explained

July 30, 2007 Chris Byrne Democracy, Dumbasses and Authoritarians, Election '08, Individual Rights, Politics, Separation Of Powers, The Bill Of Rights, The Surveillance State, War on Terror

Never ascribe to malice, that which can be adequately explained by incompetence –Napoleon Bonaparte

So, it’s been making the rounds on the far lefty loony blogs and forums (and amazingly not a few libertarian sites as well) for some time now that Bush and company are going to stage a terrorist attack and use it as justification to suspend the elections etc… etc…

This is generally followed by a litany of supposed “crimes and abuses” by the Bush administration, some of which are legitimate, some are blown out of proportion and context, and some of which are just plain lunacy.

Then of course comes the requisite rant about how the “right wing idiot sheeple will just swallow whatever lies they are told and give up all our essentials freedoms because they believe Bush is getting messages from god about the rapture” or some other such nonsense.

Bull. Utter and complete, unmitigated bull.

I won’t even attempt to refute the base assertion her;e that Bush and company would attempt some kind of coup, or false flag operation etc… To do so would be a pointless waste of time; one does not argue with the insane, one treats them medically.

But, I’d like to address that other assertion; that those of us not on the “enlightened progressive left” would blindly follow the orders of such a man as would attempt such a thing; for any reason, never mind a religious one.

Believe me on this one, real conservatives and libertarians dislike the abridgment of our fundamental rights FAR MORE than those on the left do. Leftists are almost always willing to accept a tyrant, or tyrannical abuses of power, if they believe it’s “all in a good cause”. Libertarians and real conservatives are substantially defined by the fact that they are most definitely not.

Even if you LIKE what the president is doing with the power he has arrogated to himself (and in some cases I think real good is being done; though mostly it’s just a stunning example of incompetents given too much power and authority), you don’t want them to HAVE that power, because the next guy could be a deranged madwoman.

Oh and for those of you who harp constantly on the “unprecedented disrespect for the American people and our civil rights, displayed by the Bush administration”, you obviously weren’t paying attention from January 20th 1993 through January 20th 2001.

As an Air Force officer, I saw a lot of “interesting” data during the Clinton administration. Believe me, it was every bit as bad as you imagine Bush to be; they were just a lot better at sugarcoating it and/or hiding it. If you don’t believe me talk to anyone who did any intel analysis during those years; they’ll have a similar story to tell. The Clinton administration lived by the dictum: “Power Corrupts, Absolute Power is really kinda cool”.

What is striking isn’t how much this administration abuses the power of the executive office; Clinton, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Wilson, and both Roosevelts did FAR worse. What’s striking is how utterly incompetent they have been at doing so.

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

OSHA Contemplates Regulating Ammunition as Explosives

July 11, 2007 Stephen Littau Blog Discussions, Constitution, Dumbasses and Authoritarians, General, Government Regulation, Individual Rights, Keep and Bear Arms, Legal, Politics, The Bill Of Rights

OSHA is now considering regulating ammunition as explosives. If OSHA has its way, ammunition will become very difficult to purchase, store, or transport and would seriously curtail the individual’s constitutional right to bear arms without specifically banning firearms. One can only wonder how the courts would rule if OSHA’s proposed regulation were challenged. I for one hope we never have to find out.

The main reasoning behind OSHA’s consideration is primarily to do with workplace safety, as is their job. Bullets can explode if heated or put under pressure, and they do have gunpower in them too, that’s a no brainer. There have been several cases of people who work with ammunition becoming injured as a result of exploding ammunition, causing them to seek out a personal injury attorney California law firm so they can pay off their medical bills. Naturally, OSHA saw the nature of these injuries and decided something had to be done. I just wish they could do so in a way that will not conflict with the constitution.

Predictably, the DemocraticUnderground.com crowd believes that those of us who actually believe in the individual’s right to bear arms are overreacting:

Apparently OSHA’s new regulations will BAN ALL AMMUNITION FOREVER OMGZ. This is WORSE THAN NAZI GERMANY.

I’m not necessarily caring one way or the other, and think this is much ado over a proposed regulation that will likely never make it out of the comment phase. It’s just amusing listening to all the good Republicans bitching and whining all day.

Vladimir Lenin once said “One man with a gun can control 100 without one.” Other despots made similar statements concerning gun control. What I fail to understand is that if Bush is the tyrant the Left would have us believe; shouldn’t they also be concerned about disarming American citizens or otherwise restricting access to ammunition?

Stephen Littau

http://fpffressminds.blogspot.com/

David Broder Doesn’t Understand Freedom Of Speech

July 1, 2007 Doug Mataconis Constitution, Free Speech, Individual Rights, The Bill Of Rights

David Broder has a column in today’s Washington Post that appears to be a rousing defense of the Supreme Court’s decision restricting the reach of McCain-Feingold, but then he demonstrates clearly that he really doesn’t understand what freedom of speech is all about.

He starts out with some well-deserved criticism of the Mainstream Media’s reaction to the decision:

The decision was greeted with derision. The New York Times said “it opened a big new loophole in time to do mischief in the 2008 elections.” The Post said that while the ad seems “inoffensive” on its face, the ruling “reopens a dangerous loophole.” The Reform Institute said it “paves the way for the return of sham ‘issue ads’ just as the 2008 campaign is heating up.”

Have we completely lost our bearings? This is no “loophole,” folks. This is pretty basic. I agree completely with Matt Notowidigdo, who wrote to the Times, as “someone who is passionately pro-choice,” that he cheered the ruling for the anti-abortion group.

“While that organization might technically fit under the definition of a ‘corporation’ for the purposes of campaign finance law,” he wrote, “I have trouble understanding how that organization’s involvement in the late stages of a campaign represents an excessive influence of ‘special interests’ . . . .

“The organization clearly represents the views of a very large number of citizens. The many citizens who contribute time and money to Wisconsin Right to Life care deeply about issues related to abortion, and I think that it is a clear victory for political speech that they can now collectively express themselves when their message has the greatest impact.”

He even makes the point that so-called election law reformers simply don’t understand the issues that are at stake when they attempt to restrict private funding of campaigns:

The reality that reformers find hard to accept is that in this country, efforts to regulate tightly the flow of money from the private sector to the political world will almost always run afoul of the courts. The effect of much over-regulation is not to shut down the spigots but to drive donors farther and farther underground.

But then, as is usually the case for inside-the beltway types like Broder, he goes horribly, horribly wrong:

Two approaches remain open. A carefully drafted constitutional amendment could certify Congress’s right to some form of campaign finance regulation. More realistically, a system of public finance — taxpayer-subsidized campaigns — would enable candidates to cope with the inevitable intrusion of outside voices into their races.

It takes a moment to understand the implications of what Broder is talking about here. Even back in its 1976 decision that permitted limits on campaign contributions, Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court has recognized that campaign contributions and political activism on behalf of a candidate are, at some fundamental level, activities that are protected by the First Amendment. This was recognized even more forcefully in the decisions the Court handed down last week.

To the extent that the Court has allowed regulation of campaign finance, it has balanced the rights of the individual with the supposed interest of the state to regulate elections. Many, including myself, would argue that the Court has gone too far in allowing the state to interfere with the ability of citizens to exercise their First Amendment rights with respect to supporting the candidate of their choice. But the Court still recognizes that regulating campaign contributions in any respect implicates the First Amendment.

What Broder suggests, basically, is something that has not been done in the 216 years since the Bill of Rights was ratified. He suggests that we amend the First Amendment. That we limit Freedom of Speech. And that, ultimately, we violate the rights of every citizen by forcing them, through taxation, to contribute to the campaigns of candidates they don’t agree with.

Quite honestly, I can’t think of anything that would be more un-American.