ACLU v Patriot Act. Lawsuit filed.

[fjolnirsson]

I know almost everybody here seems to have an opinion on the patriot act. Some of us think it's a violation of the Constitution, others don't. Others think it is, but a necessary one. What do you guys think of this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Secret law, secret lawsuit

To no one's surprise, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit challenging the constitutionality of parts of the USA Patriot Act, the sweeping security law passed in the immediate aftermath of 9-11.
To what should be everyone's shock, the mere fact of the lawsuit was kept secret under provisions of the act.

"It is remarkable that a gag provision in the Patriot Act kept the public in the dark about the mere fact that a constitutional challenge had been filed in court," said the ACLU. Remarkable and also scary.


The lawsuit was sealed for over three weeks while the ACLU and the government haggled over what the ACLU could and could not say publicly about its lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed in New York on April 6 and a heavily edited version was released on April 28.

One of the secrets is the other plaintiff in the case, identified only as an "Internet access business." The FBI, through a National Security Letter, apparently was seeking from an Internet service provider a client's billing information, online purchases and e-mail addresses.

For the whole article, go here:
http://www.cincypost.com/2004/04/30/edita043004.html

 

[fjolnirsson]

C'mon. Anybody?

 

[Jim March]

Secret lawsuits.

Sigh.

Yes, I know a bit about that.

Grooooaan.

 

[Wildalaska]

I read the other day about the enormous increases in "secret Court" warrants under the Patriot Act...

1,743 I think was the number...

Now lets see, there are 250, 000, 000 people in the US......that means .0000006972% of the population is UNDER ATTACK BY THE GOVERNMENT GOONS!

Im just gonna watch over my shoulder.

I think we would be better off by debating how to clean out the rascists and bad apples in the RKBA movement rather than worry about the Patriot Act...

WildchekoutmylibrarybookstheyareeclecticAlaska

 

[Treylis]

Now lets see, there are 250, 000, 000 people in the US......that means .0000006972% of the population is UNDER ATTACK BY THE GOVERNMENT GOONS!

So... it's OK if people's rights are violated if it's only done on a small scale?

 

[fjolnirsson]

So... it's OK if people's rights are violated if it's only done on a small scale?

Hmm. Apparently, so long as it isn't the RKBA, nobody cares. Or maybe it's just that the plaintiff is the ACLU. Granted, I despise the ACLU, but that's beside the point.

 

[w4rma]

Granted, I despise the ACLU, but that's beside the point.

Except for the ACLU, there are few other organizations (none?) protecting the rest of the Bill of Rights. You should support them, not despise them, imho.

 

[fjolnirsson]

I've tried to like the ACLU, I really have. But I can't stand their buffet table approach to the bill of rights.
Then there's the fact that they keep helping criminals...

 

[BryanP]

I've tried to like the ACLU, I really have. But I can't stand their buffet table approach to the bill of rights.

That is a bit of a problem. Then again I don't see the NRA out there championing the 4th or 5th Amendments either ...

Then there's the fact that they keep helping criminals...

Some of the most important parts of the BOR deal with how we treat people when they are accused of a crime. That's kind of the point.

 

[another okie]

The scariest parts of the Patriot Act are the parts that keep government actions under the act secret. They break into your home and search, and don't have to tell you. They get your library records, and not only do they not have to tell you, the librarian can't tell you. They imprison you and don't tell anyone or allow you to get a lawyer.

The Fourth and Fifth and Sixth Amendments are under attack, but so is the First, if it's OK in the name of "campaign finance reform" to make it a crime to criticize a politician.

 

[Jim March]

Wait: the NRA doesn't try and BACKSTAB the rest of the BoR.

True, they're focused on the 2nd Amendment, and we all understand that. But the ACLU flat-out attacks the 2A.

Bit of a difference.

A classic example: ACLU SoCal head Ramona Ripston has presented anti-RKBA arguments that are identical to what Judge Reinhardt later used in the Silveira case.

Coincidence?

Not really, considering they're husband and wife .

http://www.americanminutemen.org/reinhardt.htm

 

[fjolnirsson]

That is a bit of a problem. Then again I don't see the NRA out there championing the 4th or 5th Amendments either ...

Jim said it better than I could have.

 

[Penforhire]

I can't stomach much of what the ACLU does but in this activity, challenging the P.A., I happen to agree with them. Yeah, yeah, I know, "lie with dogs and you'll get fleas."

 

[fjolnirsson]

I can't stomach much of what the ACLU does but in this activity, challenging the P.A., I happen to agree with them.

That's the trouble I'm having here. I can't believe I'm rooting for the ACLU.....

 

[Balog]

If anyone is wondering what the ACLU thinks about the 2nd, here's their position. Taken from the Firing Line library. URL is http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html

Gun Control

"Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's
unlimited right to keep and bear arms?"

BACKGROUND
The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47

ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Second Amendment to the Constitution

"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to
maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there
can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."
U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)

Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles.

If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.

The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia. "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument," the Court said.

In subsequent years, the Court has refused to address the issue. It routinely denies cert. to almost all Second Amendment cases. In 1983, for example, it let stand a 7th Circuit decision upholding an ordinance in Morton Grove, Illinois, which banned possession of handguns within its borders. The case, Quilici v. Morton Grove 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied 464 U.S. 863 (1983), is considered by many to be the most important modern gun control case.

 

[I_am_I]

Government vs. Freedom

I don't think anyone in the government (Art's Grammaw sez "cares".) about freedom. The Partiot Act is a bunch of words written on paper that are intended to circumvent freedom. The President and the Congressmen and the Supreme Court Justices conspire to make these words authentic, and the rest of us beings just bend over and take it up the rear.

Art's Grammaw changed it to: It's foolish to believe that the powers the President and the Legislature have created for themselves were authorized in the Constitution . Governemnt is the name given to "enslave the average guy", and this is just another part of the procedure. (Broadspread personal attack on the entire membership removed.) End of antigonistic, but true statement

I must say I am sick of you that warp the flag around yourselves and think that your statement in support, "our troops" or these (Art's Grammaw sez) Bad Guys in Washington DC and various state capitols are in support of freedom. (Art's Grammaw again.)

 

[Wildalaska]

My my, two posts and such rage! "Rats ass", "conspire", "take it up the rear", "idots (sic)"....

Even..."Unfortunately, most of you are too dumb to understand you are being screwed; maybe you enjoy it. End of antigonistic, but true statement"

Way to make some friends!!!!..first Pravda, now this...got anyhting to say about guns?

Wildprobablyiman"idot"Alaska

 

[einstein]

Interesting to me that the resposes to the original post veered away from an opinion about the Patriot act (which is what the original poster seemed to be looking for) and smash on into diatribes about the ACLU.

In my humble opinion the Patriot act marks the beginning of the end of the great experiment in constitutional democracy.

For a dramatic fictionalization of my point see STAR WARS: EPISODE 2 in which Senator Palpatine, after being given complete control of the Empire to deal with the emergency (the details of which escape me now), he says something to the affect of, "And of course, don't worry, I shall give up this power when the emergency is over."

And, of course, he doesn't. He becomes an evil dictator

And nor will this President or any other subsequent one give up the powers granted the government in the Patriot act.

No government has ever relinquished power. You can line up all the usual suspects. You know who they have been throughout history.

The whole point of the great American experiement was to be fair and open. To treat individuals as if they have God-given rights. And have guns.

Is the supposed protection against terror worth ending the best governmental philosphy ever? Isn't there a better way to protect individuals?

I'm tired now. My wife and I have been preparing for our daughter's 2nd birthday party tomorrow.

Frank Einstein

 

[fjolnirsson]

Interesting to me that the resposes to the original post veered away from an opinion about the Patriot act (which is what the original poster seemed to be looking for) and smash on into diatribes about the ACLU.

Thanks for reminding us!

And welcome to THR, since I haven't seen you around.

 

[I_am_I]

Wildalaska, I am chuckling over your response

First of all I am amazed that you can keep track of the posts on this site.

Here I am intending to provoke Red Neck (in the interest of fun), pro American stupid responses in support of this goofball idea that support of freedom and government are synomous, and you shoot back psychiatric type response that identifies both my rage at the individuals who support this anti-freedom government and at that government itself.

No, I am not intendent on manking friends. With the oil peak approaching very, very, very soon, and the related economic collapse, I don't want friends who will show up at my rural doorstep and want to be fed.

Along with food production, I am indeed concerned with firearms, and related ammo, which is why I periodically visit this site.

 

[Wildalaska]

First of all I am amazed that you can keep track of the posts on this site.

The benefits of a college education

Here I am intending to provoke Red Neck (in the interest of fun), pro American stupid responses in support of this goofball idea that support of freedom and government are synomous, and you shoot back psychiatric type response that identifies both my rage at the individuals who support this anti-freedom government and at that government itself.

Sounds like....TROLLING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PS....really cant control the invective can ya? Wanna talk about it?

No, I am not intendent on manking friends. With the oil peak approaching very, very, very soon, and the related economic collapse, I don't want friends who will show up at my rural doorstep and want to be fed.

OK, , doubt anybody will..

WildhopeamodvisitsthissoonAlaska

 

[I_am_I]

First had to look up on google the definitions of "invective" and "trolling"

Yes I was trolling. Didn't know that was a standard pattern of behavior, but it just seemed like something fun to do. I guess there are not a ton of humans sitting at the ready to respond since my troll net did not catch more than a few.

As to the invective, you hit the nail on the head, and my invectives are just bubling over after my 60 years of living under this illusion that many believe to be "freedom".

As to your doubts about those that will beg for sustinance as the oil peak passes into history, I don't know, but I think it will be more than I want.

 

[seeker_two]

Hate to side w/ the devil on this one, but I wish the ACLU the best of luck w/ this case....

 

[Art Eatman]

It's rough on trolls when the bridge collapses.

, Art