View Full Version : Rand Paul filibusters the Patriot act renewal right now on CSPAN2...
You can tune in on TV or go to the live feed here:
http://www.c-span.org/networks/?channel=c-span-2
skijunkie55
05-20-15, 15:30
Isn't the Senate supposed to be working today??? Why is the chamber empty?
brickboy240
05-20-15, 15:58
Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are really our only hopes in this go-round.
The others are either establishment darlings or other forms of losers.
Too bad the RNC biggies don't like either Paul or Cruz - nobody else stands a ghost of a chance of taking down Hill Dog! LOL
Excellent battle to pick.
Excellent battle to pick.
Sarcasm?
Sarcasm?
Actually serious.
Dems hate the Patriot Act because it was Bush legislation and aimed at poor muslims. In reality we don't need the damn thing. So long as we don't bring terrorists back to US soil to try them, they really don't have the rights of a US citizen anyway so we don't need the Patriot Act work around rights they don't have.
If somebody is here illegally, they also don't have the rights of the US citizen so again no need for the Patriot Act.
And finally if they are a US citizen AND a terrorist then we don't circumvent their rights, we realize that they have them and conduct any investigation and prosecution accordingly.
This is the only kind of action that appeal to the left in any meaningful way. Won't stop 95% of them from voting for Hillary anyway, but it will still have some broad appeal. Be nice if he got in with the Patriot Act and then took out Obamacare while in office.
Agreed on all points. Just wasn't sure on your post.
Actually serious.
Dems hate the Patriot Act because it was Bush legislation and aimed at poor muslims. In reality we don't need the damn thing. So long as we don't bring terrorists back to US soil to try them, they really don't have the rights of a US citizen anyway so we don't need the Patriot Act work around rights they don't have.
If somebody is here illegally, they also don't have the rights of the US citizen so again no need for the Patriot Act.
And finally if they are a US citizen AND a terrorist then we don't circumvent their rights, we realize that they have them and conduct any investigation and prosecution accordingly.
This is the only kind of action that appeal to the left in any meaningful way. Won't stop 95% of them from voting for Hillary anyway, but it will still have some broad appeal. Be nice if he got in with the Patriot Act and then took out Obamacare while in office.
To this point, the courts have a different opinion:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/illegalrights.htm
Also thought you might find this interesting:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2012/12/court-illegal-aliens-dont-have-2nd-amendment-rights/
If somebody is here illegally, they also don't have the rights of the US citizen so again no need for the Patriot Act.
To this point, the courts have a different opinion:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/illegalrights.htm
Also thought you might find this interesting:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2012/12/court-illegal-aliens-dont-have-2nd-amendment-rights/
42 USC Section 1983 - Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
Actually serious.
Dems hate the Patriot Act because it was Bush legislation and aimed at poor muslims. In reality we don't need the damn thing. So long as we don't bring terrorists back to US soil to try them, they really don't have the rights of a US citizen anyway so we don't need the Patriot Act work around rights they don't have.
If somebody is here illegally, they also don't have the rights of the US citizen so again no need for the Patriot Act.
And finally if they are a US citizen AND a terrorist then we don't circumvent their rights, we realize that they have them and conduct any investigation and prosecution accordingly.
This is the only kind of action that appeal to the left in any meaningful way. Won't stop 95% of them from voting for Hillary anyway, but it will still have some broad appeal. Be nice if he got in with the Patriot Act and then took out Obamacare while in office.
Agree. The Patriot Act is nothing more than another step in the erosion of our rights. As much as I hate to admit that even active terrorists caught in the USA have rights; I am 100% against giving the government a means by which they can suspend the rights of anyone they deem a terrorist. Having grown up in a system that allowed for this kind of latitude for government lackeys, I am speaking from first hand experience that the whims of a million government beurocrats are far more dangerous than the bombs and guns of a handful of potential terrorists.
To this point, the courts have a different opinion:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/illegalrights.htm
Also thought you might find this interesting:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2012/12/court-illegal-aliens-dont-have-2nd-amendment-rights/
The courts have also ruled the Eminent Domain can be used for "private use." The courts have made some very unconstitutional rulings.
If somebody is here illegally, they also don't have the rights of the US citizen so again no need for the Patriot Act.
42 USC Section 1983 - Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
A) I never said anything about the patriot act, but I agree, we do not need it and that it needs to be eliminated in its entirety.
And
B) from the first link in my post:
In rejecting the argument that the "equal" protections of the 14th Amendment are limited to U.S. citizens, the Supreme Court has referred to language used by the Congressional Committee that drafted the amendment:
"The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. . . . It [the 14th Amendment] will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all persons who may happen to be within their jurisdiction."
While illegal aliens do not enjoy all of the rights granted to citizens by the Constitution, specifically the rights to vote or possess firearms, these rights can also be denied to U.S. citizens convicted of felonies. In final analysis, the courts have ruled that, while they are within the borders of the United States, illegal aliens are granted the same fundamental, undeniable constitutional rights granted to all Americans.
So again the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that they do have the same rights, or rather protections, as U.S. citizens with the exception of the 2A and the 15A.
Oh, how I wish he stood a chance...:(
The courts have also ruled the Eminent Domain can be used for "private use." The courts have made some very unconstitutional rulings.
I agree that there are some seriously unconstitutional rulings handed down by the courts, however I do not agree that denying someone, regardless of citizenship status, within the borders of the U.S. and it's territories the protections afforded by the Constitution as one of them.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
05-20-15, 22:25
I believe the constitution disagrees with the assertion that illegals are not afforded due process and equal protection under the law, namely the 14th amendment....
Ted Cruz is on now. Talking about the ability of the NSA to keep track of you by tracking your phone during a call using the GPS info in the Meta data. I've got to say that I prefer that the Government find other ways of finding terrorists than keeping records on every American. A wise man once said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Ben Franklin
Nothing against those who are trying so hard to keep us safe, but I do not trust the Government with the power to track and profile each citizen even if they promise not to use it unconstitutionally. Our current Government lies daily, how can we trust them with the power they are gaining?
I believe the constitution disagrees with your assertion, namely the 14th amendment....
Didn't post that, it was in italics from another member's early post.
The Patriot Act was/is IMO a rape of our rights.
It needs to go away. IMO AG Gonzalez was a bigger menace than AG Holder.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
05-20-15, 23:15
Didn't post that, it was in italics from another member's early post.
The Patriot Act was/is IMO a rape of our rights.
It needs to go away. IMO AG Gonzalez was a bigger menace than AG Holder.
Copy. Post edited and I agree with your sentiments here.
I agree that there are some seriously unconstitutional rulings handed down by the courts, however I do not agree that denying someone, regardless of citizenship status, within the borders of the U.S. and it's territories the protections afforded by the Constitution as one of them.
So you believe a member of Al Quida brought to the US to stand charges has the right petition government for redress of grievances? The right to bear arms? Protection against warrantless searches and seizures? Trial by an impartial jury? Freedom from excessive bail?
LowSpeed_HighDrag
05-21-15, 01:45
So you believe a member of Al Quida brought to the US to stand charges has the right petition government for redress of grievances? The right to bear arms? Protection against warrantless searches and seizures? Trial by an impartial jury? Freedom from excessive bail?
Yes. I do. Equal protection for all within our borders. It's one of things that makes us stand out as a beacon of liberty in the world.
I also believe in the rule of law. The law says certain liberties can be restricted for legitimate governmental interests. In their case, the full law should apply.
I do not believe we should be bringing them here though. Quick military tribunals ans swift executions for those aiding, abetting, and participating in terror against the US should be the name of the game.
I see this all of this talk of rescinding the Patriot Act or eliminating over-sight, surveillance, and recording of individuals as semantics. As someone else once said, Pandora's box. There is no way of going back.
Who realistically believes if the next Congress rescinded the Patriot Act that the CIA, NSA, DIA, FBI, and other various alphabet Federal agencies would cease these practices and dispose of the advanced hardware at their disposal?
Over-sight and accountability with these agencies is extremely difficult, just ask one of the Congress members of the various select committees.
Yes. I do. Equal protection for all within our borders. It's one of things that makes us stand out as a beacon of liberty in the world.
I also believe in the rule of law. The law says certain liberties can be restricted for legitimate governmental interests. In their case, the full law should apply.
I do not believe we should be bringing them here though. Quick military tribunals ans swift executions for those aiding, abetting, and participating in terror against the US should be the name of the game.
So why should anyone be a US citizen? Why shouldn't I become a citizen of some Euro country and stop paying taxes if I'm going to be afforded exactly the same constitutional provisions as a US citizen?
So why should anyone be a US citizen? Why shouldn't I become a citizen of some Euro country and stop paying taxes if I'm going to be afforded exactly the same constitutional provisions as a US citizen?
Because you would pay higher taxes in Europe.
If you think that shutting down the act is going to stop what they are doing..wouldn't count on it.
PERSON OF INTEREST....
So why should anyone be a US citizen? Why shouldn't I become a citizen of some Euro country and stop paying taxes if I'm going to be afforded exactly the same constitutional provisions as a US citizen?
Well Steyr, if you don't like it, you can geeeeeeettttttttttttttt out!v;)
LowSpeed_HighDrag
05-21-15, 16:19
So why should anyone be a US citizen? Why shouldn't I become a citizen of some Euro country and stop paying taxes if I'm going to be afforded exactly the same constitutional provisions as a US citizen?
Are you suggesting that the Constitution is flawed and needs to be changed? Perhaps a "living" document?
Are you suggesting that the Constitution is flawed and needs to be changed? Perhaps a "living" document?
No, I'm suggesting that the Bill of Rights used to be citizen rights and we didn't immediately afford them to anyone who happened to find themselves on US soil. The "living document" is how we got into this mess.
So you believe a member of Al Quida brought to the US to stand charges has the right petition government for redress of grievances? The right to bear arms? Protection against warrantless searches and seizures? Trial by an impartial jury? Freedom from excessive bail?
So you believe a Canadian citizen attending a U.S. college who is accused of an infamous crime, let's say rape, shouldn't be afforded the same protections for due process as you and I? Or should we switch it from innocent until proven guilty to guilty unless proven innocent?
Do you believe U.S. citizens in border states should be allowed to kill unarmed illegals they catch crossing the border and not be charged with murder?
You can't make one set of rules for U.S. citizens and then a separate set for non-citizens.
Now I have no idea why the hell we're bringing terrorists here to stand trail, and I agree with LSHD that we should try them by military tribunals and swiftly execute them if found guilty. But if we are gonna bring them here to try them we have to play by the rules we have established. But the SCOTUS has established that non-citizens don't get the protections of the 2A and 15A.
So you believe a Canadian citizen attending a U.S. college who is accused of an infamous crime, let's say rape, shouldn't be afforded the same protections for due process as you and I? Or should we switch it from innocent until proven guilty to guilty unless proven innocent?
I'm all for due process, but I don't think he should get to vote or petition "our" government for redress of grievances. The problem with this discussion is when somebody like me says this person shouldn't be afforded every right in the Bill of Rights, it doesn't mean I'm saying they have "no rights." This also changes based upon the individual in question. For example your "student visa" individual is going to be afforded more rights than a member of Al Quida captured in wartime in Iraq.
But there are some things, like voting for example, which are for US citizens only.
Do you believe U.S. citizens in border states should be allowed to kill unarmed illegals they catch crossing the border and not be charged with murder?
No and I never even suggested anything like that. But I don't think those illegals enjoy the right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" as found in the First Amendment for example. They aren't US citizens, they should have "no say" in how our government is run.
You can't make one set of rules for U.S. citizens and then a separate set for non-citizens.
Sure you can. Voting for example.
Now I have no idea why the hell we're bringing terrorists here to stand trail, and I agree with LSHD that we should try them by military tribunals and swiftly execute them if found guilty. But if we are gonna bring them here to try them we have to play by the rules we have established. But the SCOTUS has established that non-citizens don't get the protections of the 2A and 15A.
Because there are people who have a desire to undermine this country. And when it's guys like George Lincoln Rockwell it's the price we pay. But there is no reason we should have to afford ALL citizen rights to people who are not US citizens. That doesn't mean we can indiscriminately shoot them, but we don't have to give them the RIGHT to modify our government.
I see this all of this talk of rescinding the Patriot Act or eliminating over-sight, surveillance, and recording of individuals as semantics. As someone else once said, Pandora's box. There is no way of going back.
Who realistically believes if the next Congress rescinded the Patriot Act that the CIA, NSA, DIA, FBI, and other various alphabet Federal agencies would cease these practices and dispose of the advanced hardware at their disposal?
Over-sight and accountability with these agencies is extremely difficult, just ask one of the Congress members of the various select committees.
SAdly, even as I rail against the Patriot Act, I know in my heart what you have posted is true.
I'm all for due process, but I don't think he should get to vote or petition "our" government for redress of grievances. The problem with this discussion is when somebody like me says this person shouldn't be afforded every right in the Bill of Rights, it doesn't mean I'm saying they have "no rights." This also changes based upon the individual in question. For example your "student visa" individual is going to be afforded more rights than a member of Al Quida captured in wartime in Iraq.
But there are some things, like voting for example, which are for US citizens only.
No and I never even suggested anything like that. But I don't think those illegals enjoy the right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" as found in the First Amendment for example. They aren't US citizens, they should have "no say" in how our government is run.
Sure you can. Voting for example.
Because there are people who have a desire to undermine this country. And when it's guys like George Lincoln Rockwell it's the price we pay. But there is no reason we should have to afford ALL citizen rights to people who are not US citizens. That doesn't mean we can indiscriminately shoot them, but we don't have to give them the RIGHT to modify our government.
Then it sounds like you and I and the SCOTUS are in agreement when it comes to the 14th amendment. Non-citizens do not have the right to vote (doesn't mean they aren't through voter fraud but that's another matter) nor do they have the right to keep and bear arms. They merely have the same protections under due process of law as you and I when it comes to prosecution in a court of law in the U.S. And the 14th amendment protects non-citizens from being the victims of crime with no legal recourse for justice.
Then it sounds like you and I and the SCOTUS are in agreement when it comes to the 14th amendment. Non-citizens do not have the right to vote (doesn't mean they aren't through voter fraud but that's another matter) nor do they have the right to keep and bear arms. They merely have the same protections under due process of law as you and I when it comes to prosecution in a court of law in the U.S. And the 14th amendment protects non-citizens from being the victims of crime with no legal recourse for justice.
I would only add that some "non citizens" are able to lawfully purchase firearms.
I would only add that some "non citizens" are able to lawfully purchase firearms.
Sure, law abiding legal immigrants from allied nations. I'd have no problem with that.
Averageman
05-21-15, 20:09
I agree that there are some seriously unconstitutional rulings handed down by the courts, however I do not agree that denying someone, regardless of citizenship status, within the borders of the U.S. and it's territories the protections afforded by the Constitution as one of them.
It gets a bit foggy when you pick up someone committing terrorism or espionage. Clearly if they are a combatant out of uniform and again clearly committing crimes against the rules of land warfare. Be that a ragamuffin installing a roadside bomb and caught in the act and out of uniform or someone on the level of earning one of their own playing cards in the deck of doom.
You decide to not play by the rules when captured and resist you are at the mercy of the highest ranking guy on the spot.
What the American public doesn't know or understand for the most part is that if you 'won" a sandbag over your head and a free trip to GITMO, you got it because of the mercy of the American Military. In many cases a bullet to the head was an option and sometimes deserved.
It's so worth it guys.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/21/fbi-admits-patriot-act-snooping-powers-didnt-crack/
I agree that there are some seriously unconstitutional rulings handed down by the courts, however I do not agree that denying someone, regardless of citizenship status, within the borders of the U.S. and it's territories the protections afforded by the Constitution as one of them.
Uh okay. But not persons born in our territories are considered US citizens. They are naturalized but not citizens. So they cannot redress or petition the government either? Sounds like an issue that was dealt with in the 1770s.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.