America does not need 'tools' that violate the US Constitution to protect us from terrorists

The FISA Court is a firm violation of the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution. No ands/ifs/or buts about it. The Fourth Amendment strictly forbades intrusion into one's home or properties without a served warrant, established with probable cause.

The words 'probable cause' are very strict(for good reason). Whereas the FISA court has a much lower 'standard'(one not authored in the US Constitution) of 'reasonable suspicion'. Reasonable suspicion, might be enough to pull someone over and ask questions but it's not enough to say search a vehicle(without evidence of possible criminal activity and/or possession, etc.) If you don't have that level of proof any evidence that was gathered is at significant risk of being rejected in court.

The Stasi Court(FISA) was foolishly created in 1978(And is it me, or was the 70's the time of some god awful policy). They created the court, because the power of surveillance was too strong to be in the hands of a POTUS they reasoned.

So create a wholly separate(and unaccountable) private court, have our secret agencies deliver the said warrants and nothing bad will happen right!?

In reality, the Stasi Court became a bigger mess than a 'fuhrer' in America. The Court is unelected, it is unaccountable. They brag about the revisions of 24% of applications(that's less than 1/3rd for those keeping count) but that's nothing to brag about.

Even if it were something to brag about, I won't heed it: Their existence is against the US Constitution, period. Period, end of discussion. The FISA Court is a violation of our constitution.

Neo-conservatives argued that these violations of our civil liberties and freedoms are absolutely necessary to combat terrorists. But the record shows clearly that for all of the messes this Court is tangled with, terrorism is not one of them. The FISA Court has the same record in the post-terrorist world as the TSA.

Which rings to mind Ben Franklin's timeless and epic quote: "Those who'd give up a little freedom for security, shall receive neither freedom or security." He was right, and he's right again.

Terrorist jihad wants us to surrender our core values and our principles. We're doing that to ourselves everyday via the FISA Court(and other such contradictory actions.). It might be slow, it might be burdensome but our rights are not up for negotiation: If they want access to the homes and properties of a US Person, go through the federal courts and the higher standards as applied in the Fourth Amendment.

We must abolish the FISA Court, or challenge it in a SCOTUS hearing. It is grossly beyond the grounds of the constitution. The only reason it still stands, is that there's never been a court challenge on its constitutional basis. I hope that the end result of the Carter Page saga is that the court finally is challenged in SCOTUS.

In that one, Clarence Thomas would probably have to recuse himself as the current Chief Justice. But the others can hear the case just fine.

 

The act of 1871 was a fraudulent covert takeover of the government by England, and everything that transpired serves the empires interests and agendas.

 

Good luck with that, SCOTUS are their own brand of traitors. FISA and SCOTUS are both part of the same judiciary, the former is quasi (an unconstitutional secret court masquerading as judicial) while the latter is Article III (or is supposed to be anyway). If SCOTUS hasn't done crap about FISA by now they never will and obviously want to keep it that way. Do you really expect these serpents to police themselves?

The fraud was already in place in Marbury v Madison (1803) when the Supremes seized the power to "interpret" the Constitution for themselves. The unelected black robed lawyers had their coup d'etat 68 years earlier and forever destroyed our Constitutional Republic.

 

Amen. We have the second... the government spying on americans is like letting the wolf watch the chicken coop.

 

Perhaps conceptually, but the fraud needed to manifest in something like legislation and that couldn't happen until the civil war materially divided the nation by the infiltration and dominance of the empire.

The destruction of our constitution is in your mind, IF you let it be. Our natural rights are in our DNA, if you can accept that. They are defined philosophically after generations of observation of human society and value judgements applied accordingly.

There is a process found in the constitution NOT taught in schools, which make the people "the rightful masters of the congress and the court". It uses the 9th Amendment (do you believe you have rights you have not thought of yet?) to perfect the 1st Amendment and Article V to enumerate the ultimate PURPOSE of fee speech which is to enable the unity to effectively alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

The republic might be pretty well trashed, but by the peoples use of the constitution, we can restore the republic. It is all about unity upon the most prime rights. Here they are simply defined, and no American has a good reason for not accepting them.

1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

2) If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish then they intended that free speech have the ultimate PURPOSE of enabling the peoples unity under law needed to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

Do you accept those definitions Bob0627?

 

Well we have Jimmy Carter to thank for the FISA courts, yet another democratic victory.

God he was a horrible president.

 

A bunch of us tried to warn conservatives that they were handing way too much power to Bush after 9/11 - we tried to warn them that the powers would go with the office - not the individual President. Those warning fell on deaf ears. They've got no one to blame but themselves.

 

Nowhere does it say "served warrant".
The Fourth Amendment says:
"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 believe that Obama renewed the patriot act.

 

Yup, Obama did what Bush did, and both were wrong.

 

But, I am from the government and here to help you....

 

But that's just it. Once SCOTUS seized the power to "interpret" the Constitution, they were able not only to create quasi legislation (case "law") but amend the Constitution regularly for the last 215 years and into the future. All these powers are strictly prohibited by the 10th Amendment, yet SCOTUS stealthily gets around the 10th by trickery.

I agree. No one can really destroy the Constitution but the vast majority of Americans have long been indoctrinated into this wholesale fallacy as truth. So unless and until they wake the **** up and learn how to use that organ between their ears instead of bowing down to propaganda, they will forever be SUBJECTS of their own government.

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." - Thomas Jefferson

Agreed.

There are 3 major problems with the above. First, very few Americans have the slightest clue about the 9th Amendment so they have no idea how and when to use it. Second, the 9th Amendment, the most powerful one of the Bill of Rights, is treated mostly as vaporware by the judiciary. And third, Article V is not a power directly under the control of The People.

There is also another process not taught in schools that really works. It's called jury nullification.

True except #1 supersedes #2. In other words The People do not need the Constitution or the Bill of Rights to abolish their government (see my signature).

See above what I accept.

 

Well a direct answer to these is appropriate because they have nothing to do with the 9th Amendment directly as a part of definition. It’s all about the people’s exclusive right to define constitutional rights and intent.


1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.


2) If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish then they intended that free speech have the ultimate PURPOSE of enabling organizations the peoples unity under law needed to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

Judges do not have retained rights, but the people do, and there is no good reason for any American to not accept the definition of intent and right that 2) provides.

The people need a majority to alter or abolish, and the only lawful way is through Article V by the states and majority in a state cannot be created without the PURPOSE of free speech. If that wasn’t true we would not be where we are now. Can’t give up on ideals no matter what the people do not know about them.

 

I gave you a direct answer. If #1 is true (and it is) then #2 (and the rest) is irrelevant.

 

Creating secret courts flies in the face of our liberties in this country. Clearly, as we have seen vis a vis the use of these warrants to spy on a political opponent are unjustified and shouldn't be allowed to continue.

Try this on liberals... Trump directs Sessions to use the full weight of the DOJ et al to attack whoever runs against him in 2020. Given that for the time being all y'all have agreed that what Comey et al did for Loretta was okie dokie.. it should be just fine, then, right? Oh, and when those folks engage in foreign espionage on behalf of the investigation, that will be cool too? And we'll all dance and sing because all of the FISA applications will have been source from Breitbart or Fox, right??

Can't wait...

 

Obama changed the name of the act that made it our "Patriotic Duty" to trade essential liberty for temporary security to the equally Orwellian doublespeak "Freedom Act".

Priceless - the act that takes away our freedoms is called the "Freedom Act".

 

The Gov't has gotten very good at making up faux reasons for increasing its power and transparency is next to zero. Gov't misdeeds - having nothing to do with national security are "classified".

The latest justification for taking away liberty is "fake news". It is now legitimate to go after liberty on the basis that the US public might be influenced by this terrible threat. You are not able to control your own mind so the Gov't needs to.

In 2013 it became legal for our intelligence agencies to create and disseminate propaganda on US citizens. The CIA has a long history of disinformation, false flags and using propaganda. The list of nefarious activities is long. The Drug war was a construct created to increase Gov't power. This is not speculation or some secret - it was on the History Channel "Americas War on Drugs".

The problem is that we hear about these nefarious activities 50 years after the fact.

The safeguards protecting us from totalitarianism have been systematically removed. In a nation founded on "limited Gov't power" the Gov't has nearly unlimited power.

It is only a matter of time before this power is abused. It is being abused already but I mean "really abused". This will not look like Stalin's Russia or Hitlers Germany and nor should we expect it to. The powers are far more sophisticated.

We are like frogs in a pot of water where the temperature is increasing.

At some point all regimes go bad - this is a historical imperative. If the bad regimes of the past had the technology we have today it gets Orwellian very quickly.

We had the thought police during the McCarthy era. Imagine today when the Gov't can access everything you ever said online, texts, emails, posts on political forum and so on. Everyone is guilty of some kind of "thought sin".

Imagine being in constant fear of the Gov't coming after you because of previous thoughts expressed. "I hope they do not pick me" would be in ones mind on a constant basis.

What a great way to control the raging masses - coming to a theater near you - at some point.

 

Wonderfully said

 

If you are being honest by saying that, then why were the powers granted to Bush, expanded under Obama? Specifically the NSA and Drones?

Liberals are full of ****.

 

Add to that decreased Gov't transparency and increased persecution of those who would out Gov't crimes (and I am not talking about Assange, Snowden and the He/She) - I am talking about folks who tried to go through legitimate channels.

NSA Whistleblowers Seek $100 Million for Their Troubles

https://www.usnews.com/news/article...leblowers-seek-100-million-for-their-troubles

.These guys has their houses ramsacked.. computers confiscated and endured the full weight of Gov't power and persecution. For What ? Disagreeing with an illegal activities in Gov't and complaining through proper channels.

Who was part of this persecution ... one guess ? If you guessed Mueller you would be correct.

In 2013 it became legal for our intelligence agencies to create and disseminate propaganda on US citizens. Same year Obama rescinded the act forbidding tax dollars being used to fund terrorist groups .. Why ? So Obama could fund terrorist groups .. specifically Al Qaeda and others of the same ilk in Syria.

 

I loved how Obama ridiculed Bush about the Patriot Act, but then completely outdid Bush's programs once he took office.

It just shows you how full of **** politicians are.

Obama violated so many more rights than Bush. He also expanded the NSA's RU and the Drone Program.

And there are liberals here bitching about the Patriot Act...

LOL

 

We should all be outraged over an act which makes it our "Patriotic Duty" to trade essential liberty for temporary security. What happened to "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" ?

The land of the free - home of the brave - is now the land of those on their knees begging to give up essential liberty over a risk of harm that is 400 times less than the risk of harm from "walking".

Obama changed the name to the equally Orwellian doublespeak "Freedom Act"

I remember almost falling out of my chair hearing Obama say "If we want increased security, we have to give a little"
This was defending the NSA en mass spying program on US citizens. The head of the NSA - (Clapper) lied to congress (Felony 1) about this en mass spying (Felony 2). Not only was he not punished - he kept his Job !.

Had Obama - Harvard Constitutional Scholar and civil rights activist - never heard of Ben Franklin "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security"

Now I understand the village idiot (Bush) not knowing the basic principle on which this nation was founded - "Individual liberty is ABOVE the legitimate authority of Gov't" but Obama ?

This is the scary thing .. Obama knew exactly what he was saying as he was saying it. He knew 100% that he was violating everything he had previously stood for and the founding principles. He knew specifically that he was failing to uphold the sacred oath of office to uphold the constitution and the principles by which law and the constitution are supposed to be interpreted.

Yet - he did it anyway.

Following my previous post.

No one cares. No one gives a hoot about the founding principles. Establishment International financiers/national Oligarchs choose the majority of those who get into congress. These folks then choose the elite bureaucrats and elite Judges who are on board with the Establishment agenda and ideology.

Most realize this on some level ...and at the end of the day someone (some group) has to run the show. The problem is most people think that .. in general ...Gov't has our best interests at heart. These are - at the end of the day - Patriotic Americans who are just trying to make America better (even if they bend the rules a little).

This is the "necessary illusion" sold to the US public on a daily basis via Patriotic Jingoism in the MSM - an MSM owned by the international financiers.

The reality is somewhat different. While in some cases the Establishment agenda might accidentally benefit US citizens - this was not the overall purpose. The overall purpose is to increase power, control and profits of the Oligopolies and international financiers.

It blows my mind that the Gov't has been able to keep the fact that it was arming and supporting the 911 terrorist group - and those of the same ilk in Syria- so well hidden. Talk about Orwellian doublespeak.

This is despite the fact that no less than 11 "bipartisan" congress have brought this issue up directly and put forward a bill entitled "Stop Arming Terrorists Act"

How is it possible that the MSM (both left right and center - wait there is no center) have not covered this ? Would the headline "Congressman accuses Obama of arming and supporting 911 terrorists" not get attention ? Not sell a few newspapers or get people to tune into the nightly network clown show ?

Silence .... Crickets. The control is way beyond what I would have thought possible just 10 years ago. Even now that Obama is gone the topic is not discussed. Previously it was a general rule that it was forbidden to challenge necessary illusions while the President was in office (as folks like Phil Donahue and Bill Maher found out when they challenged the Iraq war narrative) but, after the fact it was OK.

Perhaps this is because Trump is following the same playbook - touting the same false narrative in relation to the war in Syria.

Regardless - this is SNAFU. "Thought Control in a Democratic Society" (a Chomsky book) on steroids.

 

The problem with that perspective is you have not defined HOW the people will become adequately unifed to effectively alter or abolish. The retained right of free speech to serve that PURPOSE, pursuant to 2), does define a logical and constitutional method for the people to effectively unify under law to actually alter or abolish, and therefore very relevant.

 

I don’t need to define anything further. #1 stands true on its own merit, no extraneous qualifier changes that fact.

It is a very LIMITED tool because it requires procedural actions by state actors not under the control of The People and it also requires the Constitution to remain “legal”. It also can take many years to accomplish. Natural rights are dependent on none of that. The Declaration of Independence was an illegal exercise of natural rights which did not require a Constitution or a Bill of Rights.

 

StIll you have defined no method of defending and upholding the constitution. No specific natural law rights to do that have been put forth.

If what you state was true you could walk into a government office and say “time to alter or abolish”, and the government actors would obey because it’s “stands true on its own merit”.

The PURPOSE of free speech is an ideal first. It is a tool that does not exist, yet. The concept of the people’s authority to alter or abolish is also an ideal which requires the unity of the people to create a majority which then has the authority. Through sharing and understanding the unity can develop.

The PURPOSE of free speech is not limited, just as you can talk about anything. When unity is enabled, a majority can form. This is a primary purpose of free speech. The majority can lawfully define rights that are retained then list them with Article V by using their majorities in states and it is all lawful.

The majorities in states can control the state actors, but they must form first.

The 1st Amendment perfected with the 9th Amendment by the people’s authority as exercised by states under Article V constitutes the “right that protects all rights”. It is a functional array of natural law rights as basis for legal mechanism.