SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @02:44PM
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
"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
The last seven or so US presidents beg to differ.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @03:01PM
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
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
It's totally what you meant, though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @03:14PM
No, it isn't, and you're a bad mind reader.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday June 15 2015, @03:22PM
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
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
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
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
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
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.