The Fourth Amendment

[Ian_rd]

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.

I will happily support a candidate who agrees with that statement. I will not support a candidate who doesn't. This is not some specific pet interest or issue, not some spiteful statement by an angry civil libertarian with too much time on my hands. This is my goddamn right, my inalienable right. And it was just alienated by Barack Obama.

Holy fuck, have the last seven years changed our country so much that both mainstream candidates don't believe we have a right to be free from unwarranted search and seizure? Of course, maybe I'm being irrational, maybe it's more complicated than that. Maybe leniency and loopholes from the force of law should be made official by Congress for well-connected corporate criminals.

[MissMillie]

1. yeah, this is why my first pick was Chris Dodd

Dodd stood in the Senate and defended the Constitution.... exactly what a President SWEARS to do when he takes the office.

[dflprincess]

3. A senator also makes that promise. (eom)

[Ian_rd]

6. It really begs a question.

Do laws mean anything if all the lawmakers and law enforcers simply ignore them?

Laws are an illusion, nothing more than printed words on paper. They only work to provide structure and boundaries to society when people of authority think they govern. If they stop thinking that laws govern this nation, then the laws become meaningless, and we revert to a more primitive society of being a nation ruled by powerful men, and not laws.

This is why President Bush and so many others inside his administration, even for all their crimes that have resulted in theft, harm, and death, will never be impeached nor see justice of any kind. Because we are no longer a nation of laws. The laws are there, but they have lost their power, because our authority figures have stopped thinking they govern.

[fasttense]

2. I think Obama's backbone dissolved when he beat Hillary. n/t

[Donnachaidh]

4. no -- in reality there was so much intense lighting on defeating Clinton

People failed to pick up on Obama's little *backbone* problem.

[rudy23]

5. To me it's not a left/right "issue". It's a freedom/slavery foundation block of our free society.

The 4th amendment is not something to boil down to a 2 minute argument on CNN.

The surveillance class has perfectly utilized this election to make a giant leap towards a surveillance state. And hardly anyone will notice today.

[polmaven]

7. I just want to make it clear...

The immunity for the telecoms is for CIVIL actions only! Criminal charges are not included.

[Ian_rd]

8. Let me translate:

U.S. Lawmakers and the Executive may still bring prosecution against the people who fund their campaigns and take them on trips to the Bahamas, but ordinary U.S. citizens and groups like the ACLU have been robbed of their right to sue these corporations for their unconstitutional activities against the U.S. public.

In other words: The whole point of this legislation is to protect the corporations from the people. The corporations do not fear action from the government, because they own it.

[hootinholler]

10. That's about spot on I'd say. n/t

[MrCoffee]

9. Fuck Immunity, it's the rest of the law that directly violates the 4th

Baucus (D-MT), Bayh (D-IN), Carper (D-DE), Casey (D-PA), Conrad (D-ND), Feinstein (D-CA)
Inouye (D-HI), Johnson (D-SD), Kohl (D-WI), Landrieu (D-LA), Lieberman (ID-CT), Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO), Mikulski (D-MD), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Obama (D-IL), Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV), Salazar (D-CO), Webb (D-VA), Whitehouse (D-RI), Wicker (R-MS)

Remember when a specific warrant used to be necessary to intercept a phone call? Remember when any warrant at all used to be necessary? Remember when Congress at least had some measure of oversight?

Those were fun times.

[TexasObserver]

11. The OP is utter nonsense.

The bill voted today does not violate the 4th amendment. If you think it does, why don't you explain how?

[Ian_rd]

12. Let's walk through it.

The law states that we shall be free of unwarranted searches.

These telecommunication corporations violated that law.

This FISA bill protects them from legal action by the public.

So, if a law is deliberately made unenforceable, then it no longer has meaning.



Come on, think about it. It's like a state government saying murder charges will no longer be brought against anyone, even though murder shall remain illegal. It's a clever way to leave a law in place but destroy it at the same time. The FISA bill violates the Fourth Amendment by rendering it unenforceable.

[TexasObserver]

13. The 4th amendment restricts THE GOVERNMENT from violating your fourth amendment rights.

The 4th amendment restricts THE GOVERNMENT from violating your fourth amendment rights. The Bill of Rights creates the rights you have which your GOVERNMENT cannot take away.

The FISA telecom immunity takes away your right to sue a PRIVATE entity for breach of contract or invasion of privacy. It has nothing to do with your 4th amendment rights, which only apply to your relationship with your GOVERNMENT. It is the removal of your ability to sue for money damages the telecoms, which are PRIVATE concerns.

If you cannot grasp that difference, you'll never understand when the 4th applies and when it doesn't. It applies to GOVERNMENT actions, not PRIVATE actions. Your 4th amendment rights do not apply any time the government is not the actor, either literally or through a surrogate. Even then, your remedy is against the government, not the private entity, unless you're suing them NOT FOR THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, but for breach of contract and invasion of privacy.

Your 4th amendment complaint against the government is valid. They did violate it, and they continue to violate it, with or without FISA. And that violation cannot be wiped out by any act of congress. It's a constitutional violation, and the congress lacks the authority to override the constitution. The telecom immunity bill removes civil lawsuit remedies, and the prospect of discovery and money damages they bring. Yes, it's annoying and it's protecting the telecoms when they should not be protected, but the granting of civil immunity is not a 4th amendment issue.

Will it likely help the government hide some of its 4th amendment violations? Yes, and that's very unfortunate.