Rand Paul pushes for 4th amendment protections

You may not agree on everything he says or does, but he is dead on when it comes to civil liberties and he walks the walk. In other words, you know what you're getting with him.

http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=838

From his op ed in the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/07/nsa-verizon-surveillance-constitution

 

I like Rand. Good for him.

 

He's more electable than his dad ever was, and he possesses the good qualities of his dad's politics with none of the bad.

Rand 2016, at this point.

 

From Rand's Senate page:

"The revelation that the NSA has secretly seized the call records of millions of Americans, without probable cause, represents an outrageous abuse of power and a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. I have long argued that Congress must do more to restrict the Executive's expansive law enforcement powers to seize private records of law-abiding Americans that are held by a third-party," Sen. Paul said. "When the Senate rushed through a last-minute extension of the FISA Amendments Act late last year, I insisted on a vote on my amendment (SA 3436) to require stronger protections on business records and prohibiting the kind of data-mining this case has revealed. Just last month, I introduced S.1037, the Fourth Amendment Preservation and Protection Act, which would provide exactly the kind of protections that, if enacted, could have prevented these abuses and stopped these increasingly frequent violations of every American's constitutional rights.

"The bill restores our Constitutional rights and declares that the Fourth Amendment shall not be construed to allow any agency of the United States government to search the phone records of Americans without a warrant based on probable cause."

Click HERE to view the text of this legislation, which will be introduced when the Senate returns to session on Friday, June 7.


*************************************

Call your Congressmen today

 

And this is just in response to the phone records. This Administration has data mined Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Skype, and many others. They have records of everything, right now.

 

good luck with that Rand. Do I agree with what he is saying about this; absolutely. Do I think it can be spun so Americans wake the F up; absolutely not.

Protecting the Constitution is not a campaign stump issue(s). We have far too many misinformed people thanks to the media, the liberal schools and universities.

If we are to save this country then a real slick marketing campaign must be crafted where the people get to like the candidate and have no clue about the issues.

Simply look to Obama. An incompetent person was elected because people were told that he was likable and you had to join the wave.

That is the sad state of where this country is now. So, unless a good marketing campaign can be waged and hide the patriotic intentions of the candidate, then we will continue down the road of electing statists.

 

But bu bu its all going for the greater good and being handled by very open and trustworthy people like Obama, Rice and Clinton.

 

Don't forget Feinstein!

 

I'm holding out some hope on this one. I think people on both ends of the political spectrum are upset about this... the only ones who don't seem to care are the die-hard Obama apologists and the "oh well I have nothing to hide, I just want to get those terrorist" type Republicans. The left was the first group to oppose the Patriot Act, even though most of them did so simply because it was George W Bush and the Republicans who introduced it. They were right. It should have been opposed from the very beginning, at least in how it was designed. It was a vague document that gave broad sweeping powers to the executive branch, and we are seeing the fruits of that right now. I blame both the Bush and Obama Administrations for this.

 

Thankfully there are few people in Congress that give a flying (*)(*)(*)(*) about something besides getting re-elected. Thank you Rand Paul.

 

Well, we are in accord.

 

For the record, there were people on the Right who stepped forward at the onset to oppose the unconstitutional and constitutionally-suspect aspects of the Patriot Act, Brewskier.

 

Name 5 whose last name is not "Paul".

 

To bad Lil Rand loves terrorists and hates killing them with drones. I don't see what good Liberty is if we are under siege by Muslim terrorists and a President Rand Paul wants to have Constitutional Law debate with what to do.

We have a President today who can make the tough calls and send in the SEALs or drones. If Rand Paul was President today Bin Laden would still be walking the earth while Lil Rand tried to figure out what to do.

Sorry but the GOP can find someone in their ranks who wants to protect America and kill terrorists I would think.

 

No more like having faith in morality and the human capability of self-defense.

Hillary sent in the SEALS and Obama watched it on the news the next morning. His job is to watch the news to figure out what his underlings are doing for him.

Yes, the Marines.

 

Piece of cake.

Conservative Voices Against the USA PATRIOT Act
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/conservative-voices-against-usa-patriot-act

Then there were all the conservatives and libertarians, including yours truly, in the Safe and Free Coalitions across the country who worked at the local level to lobby their local governments to uphold the Constitution and enact legislation consistent with that objective:

Left-Right Coalition Rises to Oppose USA Patriot Act Provisions (ACLU, ACU and many others)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1370174/posts

In my hometown:

PATRIOT ACT discussed at Safe and Free Coalition forum
http://richmond.indymedia.org/newswire/display/4356/index.php

Richmond City Council Passes Anti-Patriot Act Resolution
https://acluva.org/1577/richmond-city-council-passes-anti-patriot-act-resolution/

As I recall, our resolution passed 7-1 (Councilman Manoli Loupassi was the sole opponent).

EDIT: Oops - it was 6-1. I forgot that one of the councilmen didn't vote on the resolution.

 

Noooo, I meant name me 5 conservative lawmakers who voted against the Patriot Act every time it came up. I can find regular people who believe in stuff. That doesn't do diddly.

I mean Washington.

 

1. I have no idea what that is supposed to mean...
2. The history seems to say otherwise, Conservatives are just jealous Obama got him
3. Marines, huh. You have never served have you. How many Marines you willing let die instead of using a drone. Marines are a little bit harder to make. Takes 18 years, courage to join plus maybe another year of training. Oh and if he or she dies you get to have funeral and a family is left with gaping hole in it.

Sorry to sound harsh. I am as Liberal as they come on most issues. Killing terrorists though, I say use all the drones we got, save the Marines or anybody for the things that drones can't do.

 

It means I trust that we can defend ourselves, our communities, and our homes without the government.

You mean jealous that it happened on Obama's watch? Maybe. I wouldn't know since I'm not a conservative.

You asked if there were Republicans willing to kill terrorists and I supplied you with an answer. In fact, I do know something about the Marines.

I believe you are a progressive, sure. Progressives were anti-war during Bush and apologists now. Hope you're not one of those. As or the rest...I'd say my ability to acquiesce to the government's anti-terror activities requires a trust I no longer have.

 

Diddly? I beg to differ.

I don't know that off-hand. You'd have to look it up yourself.

Nevertheless, that doesn't negate the point I made to Brewskier.

 

While you might not trust the men and women who defend this country, the courage that they have to serve, allows you the luxury of not trusting them.

Libertarian huh, what exactly does that mean? They seem really wishy washy to me. When Bush was President they seemed interested only making weed legal. Now Obama is President they seem interested walking around in period costumes. Maybe the weed has something to do with that

 

Who said I didn't trust our armed forces? I'm surrounded by them. I don't trust our government...and unfortunately I'm surrounded by them, too.

I have no idea who is walking around in period costumes. Either make a legitimate argument based off of real facts and not memes or just admit you have none.

 

It's sad things have come to this - laws have to be passed to uphold the Constitution - and it's not just the Executive and Legislative branches of our government that are to blame for this. Last year, we had to go through the effort and expense of holding a referendum to amend our state constitution so that we could prevent the unconstitutional mischief that the Supreme Court permitted in the Kelo v. New London ruling.

 

I for one was against it, not so much at the first passage, but at the time that it was made permanent. I realized when it was in force that it needed to end. I will sadly admit, I was for it right after 9/11/01.

 

she won't say it but she and her children made a huge sacrifice.