Richard Warnick15 Senators Support The Fourth Amendment
Only 15 senators voted to block the FISA bill: Biden (D-DE) - Boxer (D-CA) - Brown (D-OH) - Cantwell (D-WA) - Dodd (D-CT) - Durbin (D-IL) - Feingold (D-WI) - Harkin (D-IA) - Kerry (D-MA) - Lautenberg (D-NJ) - Leahy (D-VT) - Menendez (D-NJ) - Sanders (I-VT) - Schumer (D-NY) - Wyden (D-OR). Senators Clinton, Obama, Kennedy, Byrd and McCain were all absent.
The bill legalizes the warrantless surveillance activities George Bush secretly ordered in 2001 (even before the 9/11 attacks), and conducted in defiance of the law ever since. Those warrantless searches violate core Fourth Amendment protections.
However, Senator Feingold (D-WI) has prevented a final vote until after the July recess.
Said Senator Chris Dodd: “We’re closing the door, never to know why this happened, who ordered it, why did they avoid [the courts], what was behind their thinking… And that is a dangerous step for us.”
Senator Russ Feingold had some choice words for his colleagues:
“It’s the latest chapter of running for cover when the Administration tries to intimidate Democrats on national security issues. It’s the most embarrassing failure of the Democrats I’ve seen since 2006, other than the failure to vote to end the Iraq War. . . . It’s letting George Bush and Dick Cheney have their way even though they’re that unpopular and on their way out. It’s really incredible.”
Utah’s own Senator Orrin Hatch had a different take:
Hatch mocked the what he called “onerous oversight provisions” included in the bill, and said those who raise the specter of unchecked executive wiretapping power “feed the delusions of those who wear tin foil hats around their house and think that 9/11 was an inside job.”
June 26th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
It always amazes me how liberals love the 1st amendment (except for that freedom of religion part), and they love the 4th amendment but they hate the 2nd amendment when without the freedom to defend yourself all other rights and freedoms mean nothing.
June 26th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Actually, Ken, what liberals hate is tortured constructions of the amendments you cite - take it from a liberal who owns more firepower than any conservative would ever hope or need to own!
June 26th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Albert,
What gives you the right to own all that firepower under your own understanding of the 2nd amendment?
Are you a member of an organized Militia?
How about answering the questions I posed to Richard about the “right of the People”?
June 26th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Whether or not “We the people” have an individual right to own guns is now settled law, and set in stone. The debate is now over.
This is how liberals have taken other Supreme Court rulings such as Roe vs. Wade so the same standard should apply to this ruling right?
Albert
“the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
How could that possibly be a “tortured construction of the amendment”
June 27th, 2008 at 12:26 am
I hope Hatch is the first person Obama wiretaps with his new powers. The minute Hatch complains, we’ll can him a conspiracy theorist.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:52 am
Ken:
Do you want me to start quoting from your bible to show just how ridiculous your last comment is? I am happy to do so!!
June 27th, 2008 at 5:37 am
Albert,
Please quote from the Bible or any other source, it’s always amusing to see how illogical some explanations are.
I agree with Ken, the words are clear. The meanings of each word isn’t in doubt. There are two parts to the amendment. The first explains A purpose, not the only purpose but a reason the drafters wanted that right protected. There was considerable debate about the need to include a right to self defense but it wasn’t included because most people thought it was self-evident. It is self evident that people have a right to defend themselves and to do that with the tools provided. Thus the second part limiting the actions the government may take in regards to firearms….
“the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Please explain how that is a tortured explanation, but defending a right to abortion, the right to murder a fetus isn’t? Can you show me where in the Constitution that right is protected? How about documents from the founding fathers approving of abortion?
How about quoting from the Bible to show that God approves of abortion?
That I would really like to see.
June 27th, 2008 at 7:10 am
Maybe Washington D.C. should treat this ruling the way the Bush Administration will likely treat the habeaus corpus ruling.
“Well, the vote was really close and we like the minority opinion. ” “We’ll just drag our feet on implementing it in hopes that we’ll get a more appropriate appointee in a couple of years.”
Also, I wonder whether granting the right to bear arms restricts the government’s right to regulate what firearms are available to people. Or should President Obama be worried when he flies into SLC International that some friend of Ken isn’t waiting for AirForce One with a surface to air missile, protected under our glorious Second Amendment?
June 27th, 2008 at 7:27 am
Obi Wan,
Have you not read the news? D.C. is planning to do exactly that!
The decision stated the requirement to keep a firearm disassembled or with a trigger lock was unconstitutional, but Mayor Fenty stated that he still plans to have that as a requirement. D.C. plans on dragging its feet on implementing the license or registration plan.
The decision clearly stated that it was not addressing nor should it be considered to address the laws concerning regulation of what firearms are available. I think that will come at a later time and it should be addressed.
The Miller decision clearly stated that a firearm with a militia/military propose and in common use should be protected by the 2nd amendment. I think that we’ll see challenges to the laws regulating fully automatic weapons succeed.
Your joke, I hope it’s a joke, reminds me of all the other hysteria related to firearms. Every time a state eases it’s concealed carry laws, people like you scream “Wild West shoot outs”, “Blood running in the streets”, “fender benders will become deadly”.
And what happens? Nothing of the sort.
June 27th, 2008 at 8:15 am
Bob S.– You can relax, the Supreme Court handed you an ideological victory. They overturned precedent and radically re-interpreted the Second Amendment just to make the NRA happy.
The old interpretation simply said that the Constitution was silent on the question of an individual right to bear arms. It never restricted gun ownership to militia members alone, it just prohibited the federal government from disarming militias.
The D.C. law was reasonable, served the public good, and remained on the books for 32 years without any objections until some asshole decided to make an issue of it. I think firearms hysteria is all on the side of the Gun Lobby.
June 27th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Richard,
What in the world is reasonable about saying that law abiding citizens may not own a handgun but criminals can?
What is reasonable about saying that only law enforcement may have a weapon to defend themselves?
If you think it was on the books for 32 years without objections, you need to pull your head out of anorifice and check in with reality.
Please show me what court cases stated the 2nd was silent on the question of individual rights? I’ve must have missed that one.
June 27th, 2008 at 8:29 am
I’m not going to go around in circles on this issue. It’s been covered, and it’s been settled by the Supreme Court– probably for our lifetimes.
What do you think about the Fourth Amendment? Members of Congress take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Are they breaking that oath by amending FISA to allow warrantless surveillance?
June 27th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Richard,
I think the FISA is an area where comments by Scalia are appropriate. He stated that no right is free of some form of regulation.
I think that the government should absolutely be required to have warrants involving any American citizen or person legally residing in America.
I also think that the issues are less clear on how the government deals with foreign nationals in other countries. This is a fundamental question that I have not fully been able to determine the answer: Does the Constitution limit the governments actions only regarding American citizens/legal residents or does it apply to all people everywhere?
There is a parallel to Habeas here, does it apply to foreign nationals or not?
I’m not sure of the answer. I know that it is very dangerous to apply something in a blanket manner. During times of war, it wouldn’t be reasonable to say the 2nd amendment protects the rights of those captured terrorists to keep and bear arms. So should the requirement to obtain warrants for surveillance also apply to terrorists outside the USA? I’m not sure.
June 27th, 2008 at 10:04 am
The National Security Agency (NSA) and other spy agencies have always had carte blanche to do surveillance outside the USA. What is happening now, to the extent we even know, is that they have been given the same mission here at home.
June 27th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Bob:
Once again your true colors show brightly. You pick and choose among precedent that suits your purpose and discard the rest. Congratulations!! You make Karl Rove proud!!
June 27th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Albert,
And you still don’t answer the question!!
You stated it was a tortured decision and I disagreed. The amendment is clear and easy to read. The founding fathers letters and documents support it, legal decisions upto 70 years ago support it. The Miller Decision supported it but was mis-read by most jurists.
I ask how someone can find a right to privacy, then interpret that right into a right to abort a fetus and you duck and cover.
You say you can provide citations from the Bible, I say bring it on.
You say that the 2nd is a states right, but you- an individual- own firearms by your own admission. I ask how you can justify that?
If it is a states right, then you have no right to own firearms unless you are associated with an organized militia, so are you a person of principle or a hypocrite?
I would like to see the answers you can you can provide.Don’t like that precedent, pick another? How about Habeas Corpus applying to enemy combatants? Show me the precedent there? Pick another but you are the one who stated you could prove Ken’s statement to be ridiculous, I say show it.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Bob:
First, my reference to the Bible was intended merely to point out the folly in interpreting verbatim language that was crafted years ago. You (or Ken Bingham) state that the second amend. is facially clear and requires no interpretation beyond its words; I responded (particularly to you Bible on B-o-Mo thumpers) that if such were the case, the Bible permits all sorts of loony things to occur. If you desire I provide such citations, I am more than happy to do so; but I think you know what I mean.
Second, I do not recall arguing that the 2nd amend. is a state’s rights issue, albeit others on this site have. What I do recall arguing - sensibly - is that the evolving nature of the Constitution permits jurisdictions to apply reasonable regulation to gun ownership; notwithstanding what the 2nd amend reads or appears to read. My ownership of firearms is in no way hypocritical to what I have argued re the 2nd amend.
As to habeas, you can start with the Magna Carta.
The SC ruled in favor of the position you supported, Bob. I think it is now time to get over yourself!
June 27th, 2008 at 11:21 am
I think that it’s clear here, that the Fourth Amendment refers to rights held by the States against the Federal Government. After all, if the framers really meant to assign individuals these rights, they would have used the more common “persons” or “citizens”.
Obviously, this is a declaration of the political independence of the States to be free of irrational and haphazard auditing by a potentially oppressive Federal Government.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:36 am
jd:
You should put down the bottle; it’s a little early still.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Albert,
I won’t apologize for staying on topic, here or anywhere else. The bias and hostility toward the RKBA is rampant, especially on political blogs like this and the left stream media.
Here is a great example? Compare the coverage on the news, especially morning shows between the Boumediene v Bush decision and the Heller v. D.C.
How much time was spent on Habeas and how much on Heller? How many people, especially like Obama, are willing to work to overturn Heller?
I apologize if you have never claimed it was a states right like so many here have. I would be interested in knowing what type of “reasonable restrictions” you think can be applied?
June 27th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Bob:
This is what Obama stated following the Heller decision:
I agree with him completely. Why do you disagree with him?
June 27th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Oh…Albert did claim it was a State Right.
At least he took the time to educate himself. I doubt he still holds that position.
I’ve a feeling that Albert is just feeling a little obstinate this morning. It would explain his seeming invulnerability to my giddy humor.
“If Second Amendment fanatics have constitutional orgasms, they just did.”
June 27th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Albert,
I disagree with this
My rights or yours don’t change based on where I’m living. Are you and Barry saying that people in Cheyenne can protect themselves but people in Chicago can’t?
Wait, that’s exactly what Barry is saying
This is an example of the “reasonable restrictions” Obama feels he and others may impose on me.
Other issues; there is no GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE. There is a law that says private people can sell private property without the government knowing anything about it. Barry wants to eliminate that. Question you don’t have to answer, but did you buy all of your handguns new and from an FFL? If not, have you voluntrily registered them? That is the only way for back ground checks to be conducted on firearm sales. Think through the logistical requirements and you see closing the non-existent loophole requires massive government involvement in our business
1. All firearms must be registered; otherwise I could buy a firearm from you and nobody would know.
2. Firearms would be subject to periodic audits. How else would the gov be sure you or I still own our firearms.
3. Private transactions would be at the whim of the government to approve or delay.
Those are some of the ways, if not how the government would have to enforce the law.
I disagree with him because the current laws, bans, prohibitions, etc aren’t working.
Name the cities with the highest crime rates, particularly firearm crime and you’ll find most of those have very restrictive gun control laws. How did it work out for DC? I believe they call DC the “murder capital” of the country? Detroit? Chicago?
None of the current bans are working, but Barry wants additional laws.
I disagree with him because his idea of common sense simply deprives me of my rights and that is not who I want for President.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Some other “reasonable” restrictions that BHO has endorsed are restricting gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park.
Doesn’t sound so reasonable to me.
But at least he genuflects towards the Second Amendment.
It’s more respect than what he shows towards people of different religions.
Clearly, not a fan of the First Amendment, either…
June 27th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Bob:
All purchased new through FFL.
As to your disagreement with BO, I recommend you move beyond it and quickly as your boy GB has virtually assured a walk in the park to the WH for BO.
jd:
Show me where I argued that the 2nd Amend. provides a state right.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Ok.
How about here.
or maybe here:
maybe here?:
June 27th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
jd:
Not a single one of the comments you identify has me stating the 2nd amend. is a right provided to the state as has otherwise been argued on these posts. The closest you come is where I argue the right involves the state vs. the federal government, but even there the argument clearly is made in reference to state militias - e.g., the national guards - and the former need for individuals to have weapons to carry out that purpose.
Care to try again?
June 27th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Oh crap…not the definition game again, Albert. You’re gonna drive me back to stale beer.
I’ll just take your comment as an affirmation of your (newfound) belief that the Second Amendment is an individual right.
I’ll rank you right up there with Constantine.
June 27th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
jd:
Don’t make assumptions on my behalf. My argument has been consistent in this regard: the 2nd Amend. provides a qualified right to keep and bear arms, the qualifier being, as with other constitutional rights, the right is subject to evolving standards and circumstances unforeseen by the drafters. Where I disagree strenuously, on the other hand, is the notion that the right to keep/bear arms is a God given right or inalienable. That is just nonsense.
June 27th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Albert,
We’ve covered this before, how about the words that helped start our country:
How about a quote from Blackstone
Do people have an inherent right to life? If you say no, then the government can do with the people at Gitmo as the government chooses. Not the argument that has been advanced.
Does a person have an inherent right to defend their life? Yes.
Are you claiming that people can only defend themselves like animals? Using only their hands, feet and teeth or should we be able to use tools?
If that is so, why do you own firearms?
I don’t care if you call it God given or natural right, but the right to self defense using the appropriate tools is inherent with and part of the right to life.
June 27th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Your argument may have been consistent - but consistently opaque.
So - let’s get this out in the open.
Albert O?
In your opinion, does the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms without the requirement of membership in a Militia? Or, does it only guarantee a collective right of the States?
Or does it have some other nuanced meaning? And if so, what?
Take a stand, Albert. Don’t be afraid to answer the question.
June 27th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
With appropriate restrictions being used to define “appropriate tools”!!!
Sorry, jd, but the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few.
June 28th, 2008 at 12:12 am
Getting back to the subject of this post, anybody that believes Bush was only wiretapping foreign communications is thinking wishfully. That’s why I just go ahead and use my real name and say anything I think on the internet. It spoils their fun.
15 senators and 129 representatives still place country above whatever personal ambitions they have. The rest of them can tread water as soon as the American people figure out how to count their votes outside the polling booth and act on the results. The supremes voted in favor of the voting machine corporations and against the people.
Most Republicans won’t tell us how they’re voting because it’s a secret and they’re scared they’ll lose their cushy jobs.
Scalia is an idiot! Wiretap that!
June 30th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Albert?
You going to answer the question?
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:07 am
[...] through the use of blanket warrants that are expressly forbidden by the Fourth Amendment. Only 15 senators voted to stop this bill in a test vote last [...]
July 8th, 2008 at 10:07 am
politics and concealed weapon permits…
…