Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday June 15 2015, @01:55PM   Printer-friendly
from the sudden-outbreak-of-common-sense? dept.

Last night, we noted that an amendment from Reps. Thomas Massie and Zoe Lofgren was on the docket that had two provisions to stop two different kinds of surveillance: the first, taking away funding from "backdoor searches" which are a hugely problematic "loophole" that the NSA uses to do warrantless surveillance of Americans. In many ways, this is much worse than the bulk collection programs that were just hindered by the USA Freedom Act. The second part of the amendment was barring funds from being used to mandate "backdoors" into technology products -- another hugely important move. Thankfully, the amendment passed by a wide margin earlier today: 255 - to 174.

The article goes on to mention that a similar amendment was proposed and passed with a much wider margin in previous debates last year, but was later dropped when passing the higher profile "CRomnibus bill" required it.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Monday June 15 2015, @02:42PM

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 15 2015, @02:42PM (#196508) Journal

    There's this little constitutional clause called the "ex post facto" provision. Congress can't just arbitrarily punish people because they changed their mind about their own aggressively stupid legal language.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @02:44PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @02:44PM (#196513)

    There are many things in the constitution, and the government happily ignores so much of it. At the very least, there needs to be real punishments for politicians who vote for unconstitutional bills and people who violate the constitution.

    • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by ikanreed on Monday June 15 2015, @02:59PM

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 15 2015, @02:59PM (#196518) Journal

      "I'm totally for the constitution, except when it's moderately inconvenient to how I'd act as a dictator" isn't the compelling argument you think it is.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Geezer on Monday June 15 2015, @03:00PM

        by Geezer (511) on Monday June 15 2015, @03:00PM (#196519)

        The last seven or so US presidents beg to differ.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @03:01PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @03:01PM (#196521)

        Straw man. That's not what I said. Maybe you should reread my post, as I was making fun of the idea that the government actually cares about what the constitution says.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @03:04PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @03:04PM (#196524)

          If you're talking about the latter part, then I'm really not seeing how punishing those who violate the highest law of the land is an issue, but that doesn't relate to ex post facto. I guess it's an issue if you don't really want the government to obey the constitution.

        • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday June 15 2015, @03:06PM

          by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 15 2015, @03:06PM (#196526) Journal

          It's totally what you meant, though.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @03:14PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @03:14PM (#196529)

            No, it isn't, and you're a bad mind reader.

            • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday June 15 2015, @03:22PM

              by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 15 2015, @03:22PM (#196534) Journal

              Oh come the fuck on. You said congress ignores the constitution all the time, thus let's do it now. It's not "mind reading", it's you being a shitty fucking hypocrite,

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @03:34PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @03:34PM (#196539)

                You said congress ignores the constitution all the time, thus let's do it now.

                The second part is incorrect. I never said that.

                • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday June 15 2015, @03:37PM

                  by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 15 2015, @03:37PM (#196542) Journal

                  Yeah, yeah, context is meaningless. I pointed out a constitutional reason not to do a thing, you went, "nuh uh we ignore the constitution all the time".

                  This is basic fucking conversational inference, and this is the dumbest meta-debate. Own your stupid opinion, please.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @03:44PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @03:44PM (#196545)

                    Context isn't meaningless. I pointed out that the government clearly doesn't care about the constitution, so there's no reason that ex post facto would stop them. I did not say ignoring the constitution was a good idea; that's a straw man.

                    It's pretty arrogant to try to tell me what I intended.

    • (Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday June 16 2015, @01:56AM

      by tathra (3367) on Tuesday June 16 2015, @01:56AM (#196698)

      At the very least, there needs to be real punishments for politicians who vote for unconstitutional bills and people who violate the constitution.

      there is. the law covering violations of the oath of office [opm.gov] is Title 18 U.S. Code ยง 1918 [cornell.edu]. federal employees who violate the oath of office are to be fined or imprisoned for up to a year. its just never been enforced.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday June 16 2015, @02:12AM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday June 16 2015, @02:12AM (#196702)

        Then that doesn't sound like there are real punishments. Not in practice, anyway.

        And a year? For aiding in the violation of possibly nearly everyone's rights? That's too lenient.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Monday June 15 2015, @03:15PM

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Monday June 15 2015, @03:15PM (#196530) Journal

    It is logically inconsistent to rely on a legal technicality to excuse the government from violating the 4th Amendment. In other words, it would be to excuse the criminals in DC from blatantly, egregiously breaking the bedrock laws meant to protect the American people from them, the criminals in DC, while binding the American people to a legal technicality meant to protect the criminals in DC from the American people. That gives the criminals in DC license to break any law the American people establish, with impunity. We can say, "Torturing people to death is a crime against humanity," but the criminals in DC mutter, "Mistakes were made," and, "We need to focus on the future, not dwell on the past," and none of them go to jail or to the gallows, as they must and shall.

    Likewise the 4th Amendment is clear:

    "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."

    The provenance of that amendment is also clear. The "writs of assistance" the British used as general warrants were a prime driver for the creation of the 4th Amendment. Every American school kid who took civics and American history knows this. You don't need to be a legal scholar to have a firm grasp of that. So to expect the American people to believe and accept that criminals in DC get a free pass because they gave themselves an insipid, self-serving "judgement," unwinding that 250 years of precedent, is sophistry.

    They broke the law, and they shall variously go to jail, and hang. If they face no penalty in this system for breaking our most sacred and inviolate laws, then there is no law and no further basis for this system; but that still doesn't mean they will escape jail and hanging. What it does mean is that in the former case, some in government get to live and continue because they have done the job of enforcing our laws as they were hired to do, while in the latter case it means they all go down. The former is preferable, the latter messy.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @04:04PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @04:04PM (#196556)

      American school kids that took civics tend to be in their 40's these days...

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @04:40PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @04:40PM (#196574)

        I took civics over 30 years ago and it was taught as horribly as everything else. Fortunately I had the drive to educate myself, but not everyone does.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @06:53PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @06:53PM (#196611)

      You would think if they wanted us plebs to understand the law and the laws they have written, they would be in English, or at the very least the teach Latin in the public schools.

  • (Score: 1) by penguinoid on Monday June 15 2015, @04:18PM

    by penguinoid (5331) on Monday June 15 2015, @04:18PM (#196568)

    Ignorance of the law does not excuse breaking it. Too bad there doesn't seem to be any punishment for violating the Constitution...

    --
    RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2015, @02:01AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2015, @02:01AM (#196699)

      Ignorance of the law does not excuse breaking it.

      Unless you're a cop, a politician, or millionaire.