234 House Republicans (99%) vote against bill that forces govt. to respect constitution - Polidicks

[B]234 House Republicans (99%) vote against bill that says "When investigating American citizens, the government must comply with the Constitution.."[/B] [url]http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_02/028006.php[/url] [release]PATRIOT ACT CLEARS ITS HOUSE SPEED-BUMP.... Last week, the House Republican leadership brought up the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, assuming it would quickly clear the chamber. It didn't go well -- a contingent of Republicans balked and the bill fell short of the two-thirds majority it needed at the time. Late yesterday, the House GOP had more success. The House on Monday voted to reauthorize and extend through Dec. 8 three ways in which Congress expanded the Federal Bureau of Investigation's counterterrorism powers after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Last week, an effort to extend these provisions of the so-called Patriot Act and a related intelligence law failed to pass after falling just short of the two-thirds' majority needed under a special rule. On Monday, however, the bill was able to pass with only a simple majority -- and it did so, 275 to 144. Looking at the roll call, 27 Republicans broke party ranks and opposed the measure, and 65 Democrats did the opposite. In general, most Republicans supported Patriot Act reauthorization, and most Democrats opposed it. This is nearly identical to last week's vote totals, but this time, only a simple majority was needed for passage. There was, incidentally, an interesting motion to recommit from House Democrats. Every Member of Congress takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. While Members of Congress are all united in their commitment to protect our country against its enemies, they should be equally united to uphold the Constitution. Today, Democrats offered a motion to recommit on legislation to extend expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act to ensure that PATRIOT Act powers are not used to violate the Constitutional freedoms and protections guaranteed to all Americans. The motion included two parts: No Constitutional shortcuts. When investigating American citizens, the government must comply with the Constitution, even in national security investigations Challenging unconstitutional action. If a citizen challenges the government's use of PATRIOT Act power in a court of law, the case must be expedited to ensure the individual's rights are upheld. A total of two House Republicans -- Texas' Ron Paul and North Carolina's Walter Jones -- voted for this, while 234 did not.[/release]

Word...

So much for the several hours they wasted reading the Constitution at the start of this congressional session.

Republicans are doing whatever they can to bring the government to a halt so they can claim Obama isn't doing anything, even if it ends up being detrimental to the country. This has been made very clear over and over. House GOP are anti-American, to throw [i]their[/i] terms around.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;28093334]Republicans are doing whatever they can to bring the government to a halt so they can claim Obama isn't doing anything, even if it ends up being detrimental to the country. This has been made very clear over and over. House GOP are anti-American, to throw [i]their[/i] terms around.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying that the GOP isn't totally fucked, but I [i]highly[/i] doubt that they're anti-American.

[QUOTE=Lord of Awesome;28093396]I'm not saying that the GOP isn't totally fucked, but I [i]highly[/i] doubt that they're anti-American.[/QUOTE] They're blocking anything the Democrats put forward, even if it hurts America to do so. That's anti-American.

"When introducing a bill, or suggesting an action to take, you must show where it already is in the constitution before we can add it to the constitution or take such an action. You must double check every proposed sentence to make sure that the Founding Fathers would unanimously approve. Unless if you're suggesting we spy on our own citizens. Then fuck it, we can't waste time and money on [i]that[/i]!"

[QUOTE=Lord of Awesome;28093396]I'm not saying that the GOP isn't totally fucked, but I [i]highly[/i] doubt that they're anti-American.[/QUOTE] And the people they use the term against aren't anti-american either, that was the point.

I'd be mad if I had something to hide.

The was this was worded clearly throws bias It's like saying "Oh you're opposed to Pro-Life ideals? You must be [i][b]anti-life![/i][/b]"

[QUOTE=Ardosos;28093574]I'd be mad if I had something to hide.[/QUOTE] You should be mad anyway.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;28093593]You should be mad anyway.[/QUOTE] I'm one of those people who doesn't care about things like those TSA full-body scanners. They can listen in on my phone conversations all they want. I, as well as I would assume any law abiding citizen, have no reason to be intimidated by this. However, I can see the reason behind not wanting this - what if they rule that it's illegal to speak against your government, like they say happens in certain dictatorships? In that sense, this does not set a good precedent.

[QUOTE=Ardosos;28093864]I'm one of those people who doesn't care about things like those TSA full-body scanners. They can listen in on my phone conversations all they want. I, as well as I would assume any law abiding citizen, have no reason to be intimidated by this. However, I can see the reason behind not wanting this - what if they rule that it's illegal to speak against your government, like they say happens in certain dictatorships? In that sense, this does not set a good precedent.[/QUOTE] Well, lets see... They don't really have to prove you're not doing anything wrong to listen, and while you may not care people are listening because you're not doing anything wrong, I do, I may not be doing anything wrong, or I may be, but frankly, you can't violate my rights willy fucking nilly. Individual rights are supposed to be RIGHTS. Things that cannot be taken away. It's not a right if you just invalidate it as you please.

[QUOTE=Ardosos;28093864]I'm one of those people who doesn't care about things like those TSA full-body scanners. They can listen in on my phone conversations all they want. I, as well as I would assume any law abiding citizen, have no reason to be intimidated by this. However, I can see the reason behind not wanting this - what if they rule that it's illegal to speak against your government, like they say happens in certain dictatorships? In that sense, this does not set a good precedent.[/QUOTE] Do you have curtains on the front of your house?

[QUOTE=Prismatex;28093963]Do you have curtains on the front of your house?[/QUOTE] No, as a matter of fact I do not. One window has a shade on it because the sunlight comes in at a funny angle in the afternoon and glares off of everything. Edit: I take that back, we do have curtains but they are purely decorative and transparent. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28093960]Well, lets see... They don't really have to prove you're not doing anything wrong to listen, and while you may not care people are listening because you're not doing anything wrong, I do, I may not be doing anything wrong, or I may be, but frankly, you can't violate my rights willy fucking nilly. Individual rights are supposed to be RIGHTS. Things that cannot be taken away. It's not a right if you just invalidate it as you please.[/QUOTE] Now, don't take this the wrong way, but exactly what rights are being violated? I ask from ignorance, not a desire to argue. Is it some interpretation of the Fourth Amendment or something?

[QUOTE=Ardosos;28094025] Now, don't take this the wrong way, but exactly what rights are being violated? I ask from ignorance, not a desire to argue. Is it some interpretation of the Fourth Amendment or something?[/QUOTE] It's not "some interpretation" of it, it's a blatant violation of the literal text of the 4th amendment.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;28094137]It's not "some interpretation" of it, it's a blatant violation of the literal text of the 4th amendment.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=The Fourth Amendment]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.[/QUOTE] I thought they loopholed it because the law hadn't caught up with the technology? Or do phone conversations count as "effects"?

[QUOTE=Ardosos;28094267]I thought they loopholed it because the law hadn't caught up with the technology? Or do phone conversations count as "effects"?[/QUOTE] Persons includes thoughts and sayings, papers includes ideas as well.

[QUOTE=Ardosos;28094267]I thought they loopholed it because the law hadn't caught up with the technology? Or do phone conversations count as "effects"?[/QUOTE] The TSA scanners are an unreasonable search of your person, and I'd say listening to a phone conversation is like searching your house, since that's where you're having the conversation. Could also be considered a search of your person since your words are part of that.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;28094320]The TSA scanners are an unreasonable search of your person, and I'd say listening to a phone conversation is like searching your house, since that's where you're having the conversation. Could also be considered a search of your person since your words are part of that.[/QUOTE] You make an excellent point, but what if you were talking on a cell phone in a public place? Would that still count? [QUOTE=Kagrenak;28094305]Persons includes thoughts and sayings, papers includes [b]ideas[/b] as well.[/QUOTE] That's not a gauge of people at all! I have obtrusive thoughts all the time.

[QUOTE=Ardosos;28094523]You make an excellent point, but what if you were talking on a cell phone in a public place? Would that still count? That's not a gauge of people at all! I have obtrusive thoughts all the time.[/QUOTE] if it's on a privately owned cellphone, and the conversation is being tapped? Sure. If they're being listened in on in physical space? No.

People get a little too attached to their rights. It's not like if the government was to take small pieces out of our rights that all life would come to an end. In fact, you don't actually have a complete 100% right to free speech: you can't yell something like "FIRE" in a public place, you can't threaten people, you can't use certain profanity, and a few other things. These "infringements" all make perfect sense, but it still does mean that your rights aren't completely untouched. This is why I don't really care about the patriot act, it's not like it's the only small breach to our rights that the government has ever done, and it won't make much of a difference.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28094565]if it's on a privately owned cellphone, and the conversation is being tapped? Sure. If they're being listened in on in physical space? No.[/QUOTE] I see.

So... they're trying to reduce people's rights while under investigation? 1984.

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;28094574]People get a little too attached to their rights. It's not like if the government was to take small pieces out of our rights that all life would come to an end. In fact, you don't actually have a complete 100% right to free speech: you can't yell something like "FIRE" in a public place, you can't threaten people, you can't use certain profanity, and a few other things. These "infringements" all make perfect sense, but it still does mean that your rights aren't completely untouched. This is why I don't really care about the patriot act, it's not like it's the only small breach to our rights that the government has ever done, and it won't make much of a difference.[/QUOTE] Yeah, people like you annoy me. My rights matter quite a bit. Why can't you yell fire? Oh, right it's a danger to public safety and also breaking the peace. You can't threaten someone? Yeah you fucking can. I'm going to fucking smack you. there, I just threatened you and that's not illegal. it also wouldn't be illegal if i did it in real life. I can use whatever profanity I want too, just depends where, and anywhere that stops you from using "language that best allows you to express yourself" is breaking the first amendment. And the patriot act? You're clearly too ignorant to talk about it.

the worlds becoming more and mroe sith every day

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;28094574]People get a little too attached to their rights. It's not like if the government was to take small pieces out of our rights that all life would come to an end. In fact, you don't actually have a complete 100% right to free speech: you can't yell something like "FIRE" in a public place, you can't threaten people, you can't use certain profanity, and a few other things. These "infringements" all make perfect sense, but it still does mean that your rights aren't completely untouched. This is why I don't really care about the patriot act, it's not like it's the only small breach to our rights that the government has ever done, and it won't make much of a difference.[/QUOTE] Nope, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those are rights you cannot deny to anyone, except the RARE occasions where they are not deserving of those rights. (Murderers, Child Rapists, etc.) [editline]16th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28094711]Yeah, people like you annoy me. My rights matter quite a bit. Why can't you yell fire? Oh, right it's a danger to public safety and also breaking the peace. You can't threaten someone? Yeah you fucking can. I'm going to fucking smack you. there, I just threatened you and that's not illegal. it also wouldn't be illegal if i did it in real life. I can use whatever profanity I want too, just depends where, and anywhere that stops you from using "language that best allows you to express yourself" is breaking the first amendment. And the patriot act? You're clearly too ignorant to talk about it.[/QUOTE] I completely agree, people can remove some of those rights in private places, IE homes, stores... In order of importance, Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[QUOTE=ze spy;28094747]Nope, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those are rights you cannot deny to anyone, except the RARE occasions where they are not deserving of those rights. (Murderers, Child Rapists, etc.)[/QUOTE] [b]They're not rights if you can deny them to anyone. Rights can never be fucking denied. You can't lose rights. They're not rights if you can lose them. Murderers may be bad people most of the time, but you can't strip them of their rights. YOU CAN NEVER STRIP PEOPLE OF THEIR RIGHTS[/b] It's NEVER ok. Why does facepunch think "Oh, your rights don't matter because you did something, so now we decide!" Even if it's a criminal act, you still shouldn't lose them ever, effective justice systems do not strip people of their rights.

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;28094574]People get a little too attached to their rights. It's not like if the government was to take small pieces out of our rights that all life would come to an end. In fact, you don't actually have a complete 100% right to free speech: you can't yell something like "FIRE" in a public place, you can't threaten people, you can't use certain profanity, and a few other things. These "infringements" all make perfect sense, but it still does mean that your rights aren't completely untouched. This is why I don't really care about the patriot act, it's not like it's the only small breach to our rights that the government has ever done, and it won't make much of a difference.[/QUOTE] Small breach? The bill is so ambigous it basically gives the government cause to do way too much if they even [B]suspect[/B] terrorist activity. It's ridiculous.

Ron Paul, wooo.