LEFT WING LOONS
See other LEFT WING LOONS Articles
Title: Jeb Bush: Rand Paul "Wrong" To Call PATRIOT Act Unconstitutional
Source:
RealClearPolitics
URL Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi ... t_act_is_unconstitutional.html
Published: May 22, 2015
Author: NH1 News
Post Date: 2015-05-22 11:09:21 by Hondo68
Ping List: *2016 The Likely Suspects* Subscribe to *2016 The Likely Suspects*
Keywords: None
Views: 4016
Comments: 22
“I think we need to reauthorize the Patriot Act, and put aside who’s speaking where. The simple fact is that it’s been an effective tool to keep us free and to keep us from being attacked by Islamic terrorists. That’s the main focus," Bush also said. Poster Comment: Read my lips, no new taxes. /s If Bush likes the antiPatriot Act, rest assured... It's unconstitutional and IT SUCKS!
"If it could be updated, modified, fine. But it needs to be reauthorized," Bush added.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 8.
#6. To: hondo68 (#0)
The Constitution: 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. - - - It is the 4th Amendment which is supposed to keep us safe from such usurpations as the unconstitutional USA PATRIOT ACT and its unconstitutional search authorizations. The searches need warrants, the warrants need probable cause, and general warrants are explicitly prohibited by the Constitution. If it could be updated, modified, to comply with the Constitution, fine. That would entail eliminating the unconstitutional searches Note that the 2nd Circuit ruled that the program exceeded what was authorized by Congress and avoided directly ruling on the constitutional question. If Congress were to change or amend the USA PATRIOT Act to authorize the bulk collection of data (a search) without a valid search warrant, it would likely be challenged and struck down on constitutional grounds. ACLU v. Clapper August Term, 2014 (Argued: September 2, 2014 Decided: May 7, 2015) Docket No. 14-42-cv ________________ American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York Civil Liberties Union, New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, — v. — James R. Clapper, in his official capacity as Director of National Intelligence, Michael S. Rogers, in his official capacity as Director of the National Security Agency and Chief of the Central Security Service, Ashton B. Carter, in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense, Loretta E. Lynch, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, and James B. Comey, in his official capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Defendants-Appellees.* _______________ * The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to amend the official caption in this case to conform with the caption above. See Fed R. App. P. 43(c)(2) B e f o r e: Sack and Lynch , Circuit Judges, and Broderick, District Judge.** Plaintiffs-appellants American Civil Liberties Union and American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, and New York Civil Liberties Union and New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, appeal from a decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (William H. Pauley, III, Judge) granting defendants-appellees' motion to dismiss and denying plaintiffs-appellants' request for a preliminary injunction. The district court held that § 215 of the PATRIOT Act impliedly precludes judicial review; that plaintiffs-appellants' statutory claims regarding the scope of § 215 would in any event fail on the merits; and that § 215 does not violate the Fourth or First Amendments to the United States Constitution. We disagree in part, and hold that § 215 and the statutory scheme to which it relates do not preclude judicial review, and that the bulk telephone metadata program is not authorized by § 215. We therefore _______________ ** The Honorable Vernon S. Broderick, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. 2 VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. VACATED and REMANDED. [...] [At 4] GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judge: This appeal concerns the legality of the bulk telephone metadata collection program (the “telephone metadata program”), under which the National Security Agency (“NSA”) collects in bulk “on an ongoing daily basis” the metadata associated with telephone calls made by and to Americans, and aggregates those metadata into a repository or data bank that can later be queried. Appellants 4 challenge the program on statutory and constitutional grounds. Because we find that the program exceeds the scope of what Congress has authorized, we vacate the decision below dismissing the complaint without reaching appellants’ constitutional arguments. We affirm the district court’s denial of appellants’ request for a preliminary injunction. [snip] At 98: ACLU, et al. v. Clapper, et al. SACK, Circuit Judge, concurring: I fully concur in Judge Lynch’s opinion for the Court. I nonetheless take the liberty of offering several additional observations about the import of today's decision. Because our decision is based on our reading of a federal statute, not the Constitution, Congress can in effect overrule it. The enactment of a statute amending or supplanting the portion of section 215 that, until now, has been interpreted to authorize the NSA’s bulk collection program would likely do the job, subject, of course, to a subsequent constitutional challenge in the courts. Alternatively, Congress might simply terminate the program. Recent news dispatches indicate that it is considering doing just that. [snip]
Under the leadership of John Boehner the Republican&Democrat party has already passed legislation in the House Of Representatives to do just that. The bipartisan negotiations to destroy America continue.
#11. To: hondo68 (#8)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d114:h.r.2048: H.R.2048 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114hr2048pcs/pdf/BILLS-114hr2048pcs.pdf Excerpt pp. 24-27
The bipartisan negotiations to destroy America continue It's BUY-Partisan! And the joke is on the American People. Look at those despicable creatures laughing at the plebes. "Can you believe they still buy this crap? ROFLMAO"
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Jeb Bush: Rand Paul "Wrong" To Call PATRIOT Act Unconstitutional
Amendment IV
“I think we need to reauthorize the Patriot Act, and put aside who’s speaking where. The simple fact is that it’s been an effective tool to keep us free and to keep us from being attacked by Islamic terrorists. That’s the main focus," Bush also said.
"If it could be updated, modified, fine. But it needs to be reauthorized," Bush added.
14-42
For the Second Circuit
14‐42‐cv
#8. To: nolu chan (#6)
Because our decision is based on our reading of a federal statute, not the Constitution, Congress can in effect overrule it.
Replies to Comment # 8. Under the leadership of John Boehner the Republican&Democrat party has already passed legislation in the House Of Representatives to do just that.
Latest Title: Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ensuring Effective Discipline Over Monitoring Act of 2015
Sponsor: Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [WI-5] (introduced 4/28/2015)
Cosponsors (27)
Related Bills: H.RES.255, H.R.1056, S.1123
Latest Major Action: 5/21/2015 Senate floor actions. Status: Motion to proceed to consideration of measure withdrawn in Senate.
House Reports: 114-109 Part 1
TITLE II--FISA PEN REGISTER AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICE REFORM
SEC. 201. PROHIBITION ON BULK COLLECTION.
(a) Prohibition- Section 402(c) (50 U.S.C. 1842(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking `; and' and inserting a semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and inserting `;
and'; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(3) a specific selection term to be used as the basis for the use of
the pen register or trap and trace device.'.
(b) Definition- Section 401 (50 U.S.C. 1841) is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
`(4)(A) The term `specific selection term'--
`(i) is a term that specifically identifies a person, account,
address, or personal device, or any other specific identifier; and
`(ii) is used to limit, to the greatest extent reasonably
practicable, the scope of information sought, consistent with the purpose for
seeking the use of the pen register or trap and trace device.
`(B) A specific selection term under subparagraph (A) does not include
an identifier that does not limit, to the greatest extent reasonably
practicable, the scope of information sought, consistent with the purpose for
seeking the use of the pen register or trap and trace device, such as an
identifier that--
`(i) identifies an electronic communication service provider (as
that term is defined in section 701) or a provider of remote computing service
(as that term is defined in section 2711 of title 18, United States Code), when
not used as part of a specific identifier as described in subparagraph (A),
unless the provider is itself a subject of an authorized investigation for which
the specific selection term is used as the basis for the use; or
`(ii) identifies a broad geographic region, including the United
States, a city, a county, a State, a zip code, or an area code, when not used as
part of a specific identifier as described in subparagraph (A).
`(C) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term `address' means a
physical address or electronic address, such as an electronic mail address or
temporarily assigned network address (including an Internet protocol address).
`(D) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to preclude the use of
multiple terms or identifiers to meet the requirements of subparagraph (A).'.
SEC. 202. PRIVACY PROCEDURES.
(a) In General- Section 402 (50 U.S.C. 1842) is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
`(h) Privacy Procedures-
`(1) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General shall ensure that appropriate
policies and procedures are in place to safeguard nonpublicly available
information concerning United States persons that is collected through the use
of a pen register or trap and trace device installed under this section. Such
policies and procedures shall, to the maximum extent practicable and consistent
with the need to protect national security, include privacy protections that
apply to the collection, retention, and use of information concerning United
States persons.
`(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subsection limits the
authority of the court established under section 103(a) or of the Attorney
General to impose additional privacy or minimization procedures with regard to
the installation or use of a pen register or trap and trace device.'.
(b) Emergency Authority- Section 403 (50 U.S.C. 1843) is amended by adding
at the end the following new subsection:
`(d) Privacy Procedures- Information collected through the use of a pen
register or trap and trace device installed under this section shall be subject
to the policies and procedures required under section 402(h).'.
#15. To: hondo68 (#8)
Under the leadership of John Boehner the Republican&Democrat party has already passed legislation in the House Of Representatives to do just that.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 8.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]