by Steve Palmer
Is this what anyone thought they were voting for in 2008? On Saturday, our democrat President signed legislation to renew the Patriot act. This legislation was first passed by the democrat controlled house and the democrat controlled Senate. Let’s review what our democrat leaders *used* to say about the Patriot Act….
“This is legislation that puts our own Justice Department above the law. When National Security Letters are issued, they allow federal agents to conduct any search on any American, no matter how extensive or wide-ranging, without ever going before a judge to prove that the search is necessary.”
“This is a massive invasion of the privacy of the American people, not just some idle threat. The Washington Post reported last month that the FBI hands out more than 30,000 national security letters per year, a reported hundred-fold increase over historic norms. How did this happen?”
“Now, what happens in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas, but not in this instance. It’s in some federal data bank. That’s what the Patriot Act is doing to the American people. And we have to make sure that big brother doesn’t take over this country.”
Based on what these leaders were saying, did you expect them to renew the Patriot Act when they were in control? President Obama was right in 2007. Liberty minded people who have actually read the bill have been saying the same thing since 2005 and before. Unlike the political class in Washington, DC, their opinions didn’t change along with the party in power.
So have you figured it out yet? Do you get it? Washington is not going to check itself. You feel oppressed by republican legislation from the previous administration? Tough. The democrats are not going to roll it back. Not this year. Not any year. They’re too busy working to extend their own reach.
Once we lose one of our freedoms, we don’t get it back without a struggle. Neither do our children or their children or theirs…. If we leave it up to Washington, A freedom lost is lost forever. Our two party oligarchy keeps marching down the path towards tyranny.
Just to be clear, I am not arguing that it’s only the democrats who contradict themselves so transparently. Let’s take a quick look at the federal debt limit. Last month, the republicans objected to the federal debt and claimed to be the party of fiscal responsibility when all thirty nine republican senators voted against increasing the debt ceiling.
There are two problems with this claim of fiscal responsibility, though. First, a mere four years ago, fifty one republican senators voted in favor of raising the debt ceiling while forty four democrat senators voted against it. A complete reversal in just four years. Second, Scott Brown had just been elected Senator from Massachusetts when last month’s vote was taken. He was elected, but not yet seated.  If seated, the democrats could not have broken a unanimous republican filibuster.  If the republicans had truly wanted to take more than symbolic action against raising the debt ceiling, they would have objected to this vote being taken without first seating Scott Brown.
This is not to say the two parties are the same. They’re not. The (R) vs. (D) rivalry, constantly stoked by the media, exploits the differences between the parties and distracts us from noticing that the truly important contest is the one between Washingon and the rest of us… And Washington is winning that one. The two parties complement each other to form a power grabbing whole. They decry the other party’s actions when they’re out of power, but they never correct them when they’re in power.
It is up to the States and the People to start correcting both parties’ abuses in order to reestablish the freedom that should be our childrens’ heritage. The Tenth Amendment is one tool for doing it. Get involved in your state. Join the Tenth Amendment movement to work towards true protection of your Liberties.
Steve Palmer is the State Chapter Coordinator for the Pennsylvania Tenth Amendment Center.
Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given
The problem with America can easily be boiled down to a single question:
Would you like a nice, cold glass of donkey piss to go with that juicy plate of elephant shit you've ordered? Bon appetit!
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
nullify the patriot act and each state should create its own anti-terrorist legislation that are within reach of its constitution.
Exactly, Tim. And state laws will vary – some will demand greater liberty, others less…but the top issue is to make these decisions where they belong – close to home.
I would have to say that the powers that the fed claim via the "Patriot Act" (an absolute abuse of the name Patriot when put in the context of that act) is a mixed bag.
Much of what the act is implemented to do (although I am no expert on the full scope of the act, so there may very well be parts that fall under within the jurisdiction of the states or have no authority to exist at all) falls under national defense, particularly the intelligence / counter-intelligence part of it.
That said, the claim that the so-called national security letters are required is bogus. There is a need to be able to act quickly to protect against immediate threats or take advantage of intelligence sources, as some of them may be perishable. However, there is absolutely no reason that any should be exempt from having to get a warrant at some point.
There is no reason why they can't execute the activity if they believe that the target poses an immediate threat or that critical intelligence will be lost, draft the warrant, and then be required report to a magistrate within 24 or 48 hours of the start of the activity.
At that point, the magistrate can determine whether the activity was justified. If it was, then the magistrate issues the warrant to allow the agency to either continue the activity or proceed with prosecution.
If not, the judge either orders them to do more homework before they will issue a warrant, or determines that there is no justification for the activity and orders the agency to cease and desist.
Unfortunately, this gets into the very sticky issue of who to get involved in intelligence matters; intelligence operations and the information they produce are guarded for very good reason. You could require that multiple agencies be involved to provide oversight, but then you increase the risk that some dummy will open their mouth and compromise an operation (i.e., the NSA being able to track Osama Bin Laden using his cell and satellite phones, until some moron leaked it to the press) or worse, a source (which could literally be a death sentence for the source).
The aftermath of 9/11, when everybody found out about the lack of communications between the intelligence and law-enforcement agencies highlights the other issue. There needs to be a method to facilitate moving quickly when necessary, while ensuring proper oversight.
In this case, you run into the necessary limitation on the number of people who can be given information about the operation to protect it. The other issue is making sure that the necessary people are readily available so that agencies can act quickly when the threat justifies it; a person being unavailable, or having someone who doesn't like the operation or people running it (or is even sympathetic to the target) can delay the process long enough to enable a target to conduct an attack, slip away from surveillance, etc.
Just some thoughts..
This is the classic argument that “proves too much.” As James Madison pointed out, a constitutional argument is “triable by its consequences.” Here, the consequences would be essentially unlimited congressional power, since almost any significant activity can be linked to national security. Because it is incontrovertible that unlimited congressional power is not what the Founders’ Constitution granted, the argument fails.
The argument is also a scary one, because historically “national security” often has been used to excuse the suspension of individual rights.
For example, there are proponents of national health care and cap and trade who claim this is somehow necessary under national defense. Absurd. And it happens now because of the precedent set by peopl who had no problem with the clearl constitutional violations of the patriot act because of "national defense"
This is the classic argument that “proves too much.” As James Madison pointed out, a constitutional argument is “triable by its consequences.” Here, the consequences would be essentially unlimited congressional power, since almost any significant activity can be linked to national security. Because it is incontrovertible that unlimited congressional power is not what the Founders’ Constitution granted, the argument fails.
The argument is also a scary one, because historically “national security” often has been used to excuse the suspension of individual rights.
For example, there are proponents of national health care and cap and trade who claim this is somehow necessary under national defense. Absurd.
And it happens now because of the precedent set by people who had no problem with the clear constitutional violations of the patriot act because of “national defense”
Can anyone tell me why there isn't a conservative backlash against the Federal Health Care Takeover based on the 10th Amendment? The silence on the subject is so deafening it makes me think I must be missing something. Am I ?
Some are, many of the loudest are the Washington crowd and their focused on their own forms of usurpations. As i said before its not really going to be solved in Washington D.C. they wont give up power. We are going to have to uses the states.
On that front many states are making a stand.
I might be immersed in certain areas, but most of what I hear in opposition is talk about the 10th Amendment. What is the "standard" line in the backlash that I'm missing?
This should serve as a wake-up call to those who STILL don't grasp how alien the central government has become. Obama has not only continued but worsened the policies of Bush/Cheney's authoritarian, crony regime.
as i understand the current resolutions do not carry the force of law. if not, what happens when those operating in dc outside of constitutional law decide to ignore and keep on breaking the law? the illegal operations in dc ,in my estimate,will continue as long as the federal reserve is allowed by the states. the hirelings in dc of the one worlders are masters at the game of waiting until a lie or thing is accepted as normal or just ignoring the law as was done in the last election by illegal acts of both the congress and the supreme court. the force of law is needed today,next year may not suffice. bert sargent ,western colo