Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The hard truth about the 4th Amendment

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
CTLawGuy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 09:22 AM
Original message
The hard truth about the 4th Amendment
Your loved one in England sends you a letter. In the letter that person writes about their experiences living overseas, and eagerly asks for a reply from you.

As the letter is flown into your local airport, a US Customs and Border Patrol Agent, acting on NO suspicion of criminal activity whatsoever, with NO warrant, takes the letter, opens it, and reads it.

Constitutional?

YES.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES v. RAMSEY, 431 U.S. 606 (1977)

Title 19 U.S.C. 482 and implementing postal regulations authorize customs officials to inspect incoming international mail when they have a "reasonable cause to suspect" that the mail contains illegally imported merchandise, although the regulations prohibit the reading of correspondence absent a search warrant. Acting pursuant to the statute and regulations, a customs inspector, based on the facts that certain incoming letter-sized airmail envelopes were from Thailand, a known source of narcotics, and were bulky and much heavier than a normal airmail letter, opened the envelopes for inspection at the General Post Office in New York City, considered a "border" for border-search purposes, and ultimately the envelopes were found to contain heroin. Respondents were subsequently indicted for and convicted of narcotics offenses, the District Court having denied their motion to suppress the heroin. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the border-search exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement applicable to persons, baggage, and mailed packages did not apply to the opening of international mail, and that the Constitution requires that before such mail is opened a showing of probable cause must be made and a warrant obtained. Held:


1. Under the circumstances, the customs inspector had "reasonable cause to suspect" that there was merchandise or contraband in the envelopes, and therefore the search was plainly authorized by the statute. Pp. 611-616.

2. The Fourth Amendment does not interdict the actions taken by the inspector in opening and searching the envelopes. Pp. 616-625.

(a) Border searches without probable cause and without a warrant are nonetheless "reasonable" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 616-619.


(b) The inclusion of international mail within the border-search exception does not represent any "extension" of that exception. The exception is grounded in the recognized right of the sovereign to control, subject to substantive limitations imposed by the Constitution, who and what may enter the country, and no different constitutional standards should apply simply because the envelopes were mailed, not <431 U.S. 606, 607> carried - the critical fact being that the envelopes cross the border and enter the country, not that they are brought in by one mode of transportation rather than another. It is their entry into the country from without it that makes a resulting search "reasonable." Pp. 619-621.

(c) The border-search exception is not based on the doctrine of "exigent circumstances," but is a longstanding, historically recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment's general principle that a warrant be obtained. Pp. 621-622.

(d) The opening of international mail under the guidelines of the statute only when the customs official has reason to believe the mail contains other than correspondence, while the reading of any correspondence inside the envelopes is forbidden by the regulations, does not impermissibly chill the exercise of free speech under the First Amendment, and any "chill" that might exist under such circumstances is not only "minimal" but is also wholly subjective. Pp. 623-624.

176 U.S. App. D.C. 67, 538 F.2d 415, reversed.


...

-------------
(bolding mine)

read more at the link

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=431&invol=606

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does this case mean? It means that the 4th Amendment has, at best, questionable applicability to ANYTHING going over or coming over a border, including phone calls, e-mails, anything.

Of course there are statutory protections, as seen in the Ramsey case, and in FISA, but the court has ruled that the government's special interest in securing US borders TRUMPS the need for probable cause and a warrant. This wasn't 2002, or 2006, this was in 1977.

So when you say Obama is helping destroy the 4th amendment, it's just not true. Lawyers who say otherwise are being irresponsible - and people are relying on their expertise. Maybe its not the 4th amendment you wish it was, but it's the 4th amendment that we HAVE.

It's fine to argue over the level of court review we should have, (and of course about immunity), but this FISA situation is hardly the major disaster for civil liberties some have said it is. Thousands of people have not died because of this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
PVnRT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
1. I fail to see what body count has to do with it
Should not worry about anything so long as people don't die? Would that include police cameras in all public locations? Random traffic stops? Arguing that something is legal by precedent does not mean that it is right.

I have no problem with Obama's vote, he made it clear he would vote for the compromise when it was announced. My hope is that his new AG will start criminal investigations the day after being confirmed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTLawGuy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. well it's not fair to say someone is "eroding the 4th amendment"
based on what "I" think the 4th amendment "should be" not what it IS according to the Supreme Court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
3. Nice research.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fovea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
4. How does this relate
To the unsupervised interdicting of wholesale communications without warrant.

The point isn't just what Bush says he was doing, it is about taking everything, and saying you are only looking for foreign communications.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTLawGuy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. well seizing purely domestic communications
is different, that is outside the "border search exception" and the regular 4th amendment applies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. And if the telcoms route domestic calls overseas
Then I guess that's OK too.

:puke:

Bake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #10
23. Wrong - the FISA law specifically says that no US citizen can
be unintentionlly monitored. That means they cannot do a wide sweep monitoring because they cannot say that it will not unintentionally include US citizens.

Probable cause is required to get an Order of the FISA court and the court order is requird before the monitoring can be done.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. you have fallen into the trap of the hysterical

the FISA compromise kept warrants in place for all domestic survelliance but exempted it only for communications going across the border.

On the other hand survelliance for Americans overseas now requires a warrant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fovea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. You have drank the koolaid.
http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2005/12/20/spying/index.html

"John Yoo -- who also reportedly wrote the memo justifying domestic wiretaps -- made a similar argument that the commander-in-chief authority included the power to order torture, in direct contravention of a statute criminalizing torture and a treaty prohibiting it under all circumstances."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. too your John Yoo I raise your Morton Halperin
One of the acts of the legislation is that it takes the power of the Executive Branch to "define" what can be considered national security away from the executive branch and it must now make any submissions to the FISA Court. Senator Obama explains the point in detail in his Virginia speech today.

Here is the background on Halperin and what he says to contradict your hysterical misinformation.



Morton H. Halperin. McNaughton’s deputy had general supervisory authority over the project. In 1969, he moved from the Pentagon to Henry Kissinger’s National Security Council staff. The FBI, acting without a court order, wiretapped numerous conversations between Halperin and Ellsberg. (AP/ Wide World Photos)

Hunt and Liddy were, of course, “the plumbers,” who had been recruited by the White House to stop leaks in the Pentagon Papers case. They had burglarized the psychiatrist’s office in September 1971, prior to their break-in at the Watergate in June 1972.

Nor was that all. Without a court order, the FBI had wiretapped telephone conversations between Morton Halperin and Ellsberg. The tapes and logs of the wiretaps had “disappeared” from the files of both the FBI and the Justice Department.


http://www.afa.org/magazine/feb2007/0207pe...



Question 1) Who is Morton Halperin

a) Close Friend of Daniel Ellsberg

He was a friend of Daniel Ellsberg. When Ellsberg was investigated in connection with the Pentagon Papers, suspicion fell on Halperin, who some Nixon aides believed had kept classified documents when he left government service. John Dean claimed that Jack Caulfield had told him of a plan to fire-bomb the Brookings Institution, Halperin's employer, to destroy Halperin's files.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton_Halper...

b)Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense

Halperin served in the Department of Defense in the 1960s as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, and was dovish on the Vietnam War, calling for a halt to bombing Vietnam. When Nixon became president in 1969, Henry Kissinger, his new National Security Advisor announced Halperin would join the staff of the National Security Council. The appointment of Halperin, a colleague of Kissinger's at Harvard University in the 1960s, was immediately criticized by General Earle G. Wheeler, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; FBI director J. Edgar Hoover; and Senator Barry Goldwater.

Kissinger soon lost faith in Halperin. A front page story in The New York Times on May 9, 1969, stated the United States had been bombing Cambodia, a neutral country. Kissinger immediately called Hoover to find out who might have leaked this information to the press. Hoover suggested Halperin and Kissinger agreed that was likely. That very day, the FBI began tapping Halperin's phones at Kissinger's direction. (Kissinger says nothing of this in his memoirs and mentions Halperin in passing about four times.) Halperin left the NSC in September 1969 after only nine months but the tapping continued until February 1971. Halperin was also placed on Nixon's Enemies List.

c) Number 8 on Nixon's enemies list

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/3700...

I was No. 8 on Richard Nixon's "enemies list" -- a strange assemblage of 20 people who had incurred the White House's wrath because they had disagreed with administration policy. As the presidential counsel John Dean explained it in 1971, the list was part of a plan to "use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies." My guess is that I earned this dubious distinction because of my opposition to the Vietnam War, though no one ever said for sure.

d) long time critic of Bush's illegal wire tapping

Two years ago, I stated my belief that the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program and disregard for domestic and international law poses a direct challenge to our constitutional order, and "constitutes a far greater threat than the lawlessness of Richard Nixon."

That was not a casual comparison. When I was on the staff of the National Security Council, my home phone was tapped by the Nixon administration -- without a warrant -- beginning in 1969. The wiretap stayed on for 21 months. The reason? My boss, Henry Kissinger, and the director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, believed that . . .

e) a target of illegal government wiretaps

. . . I might have leaked information to The New York Times. Even after I left government, and went to work on Edmund Muskie's presidential campaign, the FBI continued to listen in and made periodic reports to the president.


f) major academic and Director of U.S. Advocacy Open Society Institute

Halperin holds a Ph.D. in International Relations from Yale University. He received his B.A. from Columbia College
The recipient of numerous awards, Halperin also serves as the Senior Vice President and Director of Fellows at the Center for American Progress. He is Chairman of the Board of the Democracy Coalition Project. He is also the Chairman of the Board of the Health Privacy Project at Georgetown University. He serves on the boards of DATA and the Constitution Project (where he is also a member of the Liberty and Security Committee)<1>, and is the chair of the Advisory Board of the Center for National Security Studies

g) Director of the ACLU Washington office

He spent many years at the American Civil Liberties Union, serving as the Director of the Washington Office from 1984 to 1992, where he was responsible for the national legislative program as well as the activities of the ACLU Foundation based in the Washington Office. Halperin also served as the Director of the Center for National Security Studies from 1975 to 1992, where he focused on issues affecting both civil liberties and national security.Halperin, as Director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) office in Washington, defended the right of the The Progressive magazine to publish details on how to construct an atomic bomb.








Question 2) Why is he supporting the FISA compromise

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/3700...

a) There is another piece of legislation that is much worse that already has the necessary votes

The fact is that the alternative to Congress passing this bill is Congress enacting far worse legislation that the Senate already had passed by a filibuster-proof margin, and which a majority of House members were on record as supporting.

b) It creates Congressional oversight (where it used to be exclusively the territory of the Executive branch)

What's more, this bill provides important safeguards for civil liberties. It includes effective mechanisms for oversight of the new surveillance authorities by the FISA court, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and now the Judiciary Committees. It mandates reports by inspectors general of the Justice Department, the Pentagon and intelligence agencies that will provide the committees with the information they need to conduct this oversight. (The reports by the inspectors general will also provide accountability for the potential unlawful misconduct that occurred during the Bush administration.)

c) It expands protections for Americans overseas

Finally, the bill for the first time requires FISA court warrants for surveillance of Americans overseas.




Concluding sentiments by Halperin


The compromise legislation that will come to the Senate floor this week is not the legislation that I would have liked to see, but I disagree with those who suggest that the Democrats (including Barack Obama) are giving in by backing this bill.

As someone whose civil liberties were violated by the government, I understand this legislation isn't perfect. But I also believe -- and here I am speaking only for myself -- that it represents our best chance to protect both our national security and our civil liberties. For that reason it has my support.
Morton H. Halperin is the executive director of the Open Society Policy Center. Copyright 2008 The New York Times.




Here are Halperin's previous testimony before the House Committee of the Judiciary as the Director of U.S. Advocacy
Open Society Institute
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fovea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Do you believe in the existance of Constitiutional Torts?
Because if the Telecoms are beyond responsibility for damages to individual privacy without cause, how can the government who demanded that action be responsible? They didn't steal your emails, they were given to them by ATT along with everybody else's.

You cannot sue ATT? So you sue the govt.
The govt says: But ATT diverted your email we only read the good parts that FISA allows.

No, you cannot subpoena ATT's records, they are immune from action.
No, you cannot subpoena our records, that is national security.
Who knows how that former Halliburton employee got hold of your love letters to your secretary. Hey in a free country people are free to do things.

End of story.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. No the end of the story is that now there is congressional oversight
and in the future any Administration that thinks they need to initiate either survelliance of conversations or record searches will have to get FISA clearance first.



And no I never believed that the suits against the telecom industry was very significant in themselves.


Party A breaks (atleast in spirit) the law and is 95% responsible (The government)

Party B does not resist the government requests for information with a formal written declaration of a) legality b) national security and so does not get the automatic ammunity provided for (they still have a good chance of defending the suit based on standard government sub contractor immunity). (The telecoms are 5% responsible as the primary culprit is the government agency that asked for private sector cooperation)


Party C sues on behalf of the public ('non profit' civil rights organizations)

Party D the public

Party E share holders.

So without the immunity C sues B (when they should really be suing A). If they are successful there will be hundreds of millions of dollars with a large share of that staying with C (reimbursing their inhouse legal departments) and a token amount going to the injured party D.

This would be paid for not by A or B (meaning the executives of the telecoms) but by E the shareholders which consist of individuals and pension trusts like unions and workers who really are D.

So I never thought that suing the telecoms was the great panacea that many people did as it will end (if successful) with one subset of the public paying through the letigation the general public so that everyone ends up wtih $ 4.23 or some such amount.

I would have preferred that the telecoms be fined and that the individual executives in the telecom companies being fined directly out of their pockets, whether they were the inhouse counsel or the hired attorneys or the CEO - whoever failed to press the government for the certificates that they should have, and that companies like Qwest did.

And yes I do think that all of the non profits who filed law suits have alterior motives and continued to blow the actual law suit way out of proportion as they had their eyes on their share of the hundreds of millions they would have won (had they actually won in court).

There is an argument to be made that the civil litigation would have helped the discovery process.

Senator Obama's remarks today seemed to indicate that the appointment of the Inspector General will take care of that.

In anycase, taking all of the other FISA questions out and, centering simply on the issue of suing the telecoms who failed to press the government for certification - I never thought it was a big issue and would have preferred that the 'tort' you indicate would have been directed at a) the government officials who bore overwhelming responsibility for it b) the telecom officials who were directly involved in it - rather than punishing unknowing shareholders who had no participation in it at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
5. Thanks for trying.
Edited on Thu Jul-10-08 09:53 AM by TexasObserver
The fourth amendment has suffered a thousand paper cuts the past 40 years, and this latest bill is merely one of them. We've watched it shaved repeatedly for decades. I wish the fourth amendment meant what it says, but I know better. We have the Supreme Court cases construing laws which seem to take away fourth amendment rights. The court repeatedly makes exceptions in the name of border security, as well as to facilitate law enforcement.

I don't like it, but I don't deny it is the law as enacted by congress, signed by the president, and interpreted by the Supreme Court. One does not have to like the law to know what it is.

Police can now search you and your car any time they want, and all they have to do to get around the fourth amendment is (1) find any reason to arrest you, and (2) make a search of you and your vehicle incident to the arrest. I hate the direction our congress, president and judiciary have taken us, but it's been happening for decades.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTLawGuy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. if it makes you feel better
Congress can't amend the 4th Amendment by statute. If the court thinks this is unconstitutional (it most likely won't) it will strike the law down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. That's what I just got through saying.
Congress passes an act, the president signs it, and it becomes law. When the law is challenged in the courts, the cases make their way to the Supreme Court, at least those on which the high court wishes to rule. The Supreme Court interprets the laws, determining whether they pass muster constitutionally.

So while it is true the congress cannot amend the 4th amendment by stature, the congress passes bills that take away rights under the 4th amendment, and when those laws pass muster with the Supreme Court, they HAVE altered the 4th amendment.

Of course congress cannot amend by statute any amendment to the constitution, but constitutionality is decided years after congress acts in most cases.

The reality is that congress and the executive alter the 4th amendment every session, and until a court of competent jurisdiction rules it is not constitutional under the 4th, it's the law.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Butch350 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 10:45 AM
Response to Original message
9. Well...

If some of you hadn't put Busch in office twice there wouldn't be any "HEATED" conversations about FISA!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
4themind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
12. Thank you
this was my thought after reading the text of the bill, the correlation to customs, and I think it's something that should be debated based upon it's merits, hopefully this thread will open that up here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidneyCarton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
14. Kick for good research.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
15. Thank You!!! Not many have been using language just going
Edited on Thu Jul-10-08 02:25 PM by vaberella
crazy. Thank you OP for taking the time out and doing the research that so many on this board forget to look at.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knitter4democracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
17. How can you trust them not to tap domestic calls?
The ATT whistleblower has already made it clear that they've tapped all calls--not just ones going in and out of the country but every single phone call.

If there's anything we should've learned from Bush, it's that if you give him a millimeter, he'll take a hundred kilometers.

Why give immunity if no crime has been committed? He wanted immunity for crimes his administration had told the telecoms to commit, and we gave it to him. Disgusting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. I don't trust them at all. But the best approach is regain power first.
THEN address the illegalities of the Bush administration. It's not possible to address them while they're still controlling government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knitter4democracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. I'm not so sure about that.
I wonder how it'll look in the history books that the Dems just laid down and let Bush eliminate part of the Constitution over and over and over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTLawGuy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-11-08 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #17
24. if it is a purely domestic call
the government is liable for damages under federal law, because the fourth amendment requires probable cause and a warrant. The government is not immunized here.

International calls are a whole different ballgame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knitter4democracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-11-08 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Time for a lawsuit, then.
Make them prove they're not breaking the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buck Rabbit Donating Member (999 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
21. And without FISA it is almost certain that phone calls crossing the border
would again fall under the border-search exception as was the practice before FISA was enacted. The Ninth Court of Appeals relatively recently ruled that the contents of a laptop hard drive is subject to the border-search exception allowing random, warrant less, searches by customs (Homeland Security). If the courts can rule H.S. can fire up a laptop, log on to it, and look at the contents on a random basis when that laptop crosses the border, it is hard to imagine a phone call would be granted more privacy than that or a piece of mail.

Also, if you call overseas, even if our government isn't listening, the overwhelming odds are that the government of the country you are calling to can legally, by their laws, listen in if they so choose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTLawGuy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-11-08 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #21
25. exactly
The ACLU is suing over FISA, but I'm sad to say I don't think they will like the outcome, at least on the 4th amendment ground.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 02:04 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC