...to the military/industrial state

Democrats need to start demanding Congress do its job.

Congress needs to either fix that abomination of the Patriot Act or repeal it. How else are you going to get that viper pit to do something. Congress needs to do its job.

simply not change.

Shouldnt Clapper be in jail? That's what's supposed to happen when you blatantly lie to Congress. Our entire system is corrupted...broken...one of the preconditions before every revolution.

that section if interpreted as the Obama and Bush administrations have interpreted it conflicts with the Constitution and is therefore illegal.

As it stands, the Obama administration's interpretation of it permits the executive branch to collect the data on the overseas (and perhaps strictly domestic) calls of members of Congress.

That is an obvious violation of the separation of powers doctrine that is the very basis of our constitutional government.

Thus, members of Congress disagree with Obama and the Clapper department at NSA on the meaning of Section 215 of the Patriot Act in light of those portions of the Constitution, especially the First and Fourth Amendments that protect our privacy from the government.

The American Revolution was, in part, fought so that we could have privacy from the warrants of assistance that permitted British troops to terrorize American colonists.

The objection to the British warrants of assistance and to the NSA surveillance program are the same: the warrants do not identify with enough specificity what is to be searched and seized. They are not specific or particular enough to comply with the Fourth Amendment.

Here, once again, is the text of the Fourth Amendment.

Amendment IV

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.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment

Here. The Electronic Frontier Foundation tells it well:

The NSA's "General Warrants":
How the Founding Fathers Fought an 18th Century Version of the
President's Illegal Domestic Spying
By David Snyder

The technology powering the National Security Agency’s illegal domestic spying program would have amazed James Madison and the other framers of the Bill of Rights. In a time when the steamboat was a technological marvel, it would have been unimaginable for the government to collect millions of innocent Americans' private communications and use computers to look for "suspicious patterns."

But aside from the technology, the government’s ongoing violation of fundamental civil liberties would have been very familiar to the men who gathered in 1791 to adopt the Bill of Rights. The Founding Fathers battled an 18th century version of the wholesale surveillance that the government is accused of doing today – an expansive abuse of power by King George II and III
that invaded the colonists’ communications privacy.

Using "writs of assistance," the King authorized his agents to carry out wide-ranging searches of anyone, anywhere, and anytime regardless of whether they were suspected of a crime. These "hated writs" 1 spurred colonists toward revolution 2 and directly motivated James Madison's crafting of the Fourth Amendment.

We’ve now come full circle. The president has essentially updated this page from King George's playbook, engaging in dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, regardless of whether they are suspected of a crime. The founders of this country took steps to limit precisely this sort of unfettered executive power. Will we?

https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/generalwarrantsmemo.pdf

Spot on.

almost perfect, ...except for little rats like Snowden.

Obama ends bulk phone record collection - a terrorist attack of some nature happens on our shores - and Obama gets blamed because he ended the data collection - even though it had nothing at all to do with such an attack.

So I'm thinking that the President is thinking he has to continue the collection - just to avoid such a situation. I don't know if I blame the President in this case - the political climate is such that no matter what he does he gets criticized.

If he ended this data collection the Repubs would probably say he's soft on terrorism - attack or no attack.

the 4th amendment rights of one single citizen, let alone the rights of all citizens. They would say that shit anyway and getting his feelings hurt by Republicans just isn't really as important as so many appear to think it is. In fact, it is not important at all. I am surprised at you, get your priorities straight. People saying he is "soft on terror" is hardly meaningful in any way. People say mean things about poor Obama all the time

does something about it.

Now....I think they should do something about it!!!

I don't happen to think they are clueless idiots as you appear to imply.

already know the answer to.

Sometimes....they write letters with these questions, and make them public, so their constituents think they are doing something. ESPECIALLY when they are up for re-election...like Udall right now, and Wyden next cycle.

Udall and Wyden know damn well their fellow Senators don't want to touch 215 until 2015....otherwise, they'd have legislation in committee right now. And they also know damn well that EOs don't fix statutes.

They are playing the game...Udall and Wyden are smart politicians.

the truth: that he actively supports and defends the program, as does the corporate-purchased segment of our Congress.

See, that's the problem with the propaganda. First, it's desperate. You have been all over this thread demanding "cites" and acting as though the President did not mean to do what he obviously did, which is defend the program.

Second, it's inconsistent with reality to the point of being insulting. If the President really wanted to end bulk collection, he would not have defended it all along to this point. He would not have made public statements crooning that Americans need only to be made "comfortable" with it. He would not have rallied his Justice Department at numerous times to defend it. And he would not still be issuing absurd statements suggesting its importance to national security. He would be rallying the country behind ending it, and he would be twisting arms in Congress to make sure any necessary legislation gets to him.

And he would act publicly by having the DOJ not seek to renew the court order to hand over the data, from the FISA Court. You have been trying to imply here that it would be illegal for the DOJ not to renew the court order, which is shameless and untrue.

Really, the helpless Obama narrative gets old. The problem is corporate money in government that purchases politicians who then actively participate in the dismantling of our Constitution.

Obama is not working to end this collection. He has, in fact, been working all along to defend it. That is the takeaway message here, and all your attempts to use 215 here to attempt to imply the opposite do not change that fundamental problem we face.

The president is getting exactly what he wants.

Gosh, what can be done?

In order to provide some sort of "check or balance" against the all powerful House of Representatives.

If only the merely symbolic position of President of the United States wasn't akin to the role the Queen plays in present day Great Britain. Such a merely ceremonial position is good for the tourist industry in DC, but kind of a waste of money on balance IMHO.

of writing about "propaganda" can you have a rational discussion with me about the actual law in question?

where in the constitution is Section 215 of the Patriot Act?

and the Voting Rights Act, and VAWA....




http://m.

At least twice in this thread you've implied - or insinuated - that Section 215 of the Patriot Act was part of the US Constitution. That's how false memes are born. You should really be saying that a law has to be changed...not that the Constitution needs to be altered. Take whatever position you like on personal privacy but please argue honestly.

where you say - and this is in the title bar - "...the Constitution says that 215 must be executed..."... and 'Constitution' is capitalized, even. I realize you go further to elaborate that, because the Constitution separates the powers of exec, leg, and judicial, the president is hampered in his efforts to do things on his own, but the meme stares me in the face. "President Obama can't roll back metadata collection practices of the NSA unless the Constitution is amended" Well, technically...

Oh please.....

Kinda like DOMA. Your argument sounds to me like it's a convenient excuse, but it doesn't hold water.

You are struggling, because you have been trying to give the false impression that the President is legally prohibited from having his DOJ *refrain* from renewing the data collection order.

Of course that is absurdly false. So now you are backtracking below and have to come up with an explanation as to why he would *proactively* extend the order for mass spying if he disagrees with it.

And you offer a doozie: He is SO fervent against spying that he won't accept patchwork measures! By gosh, he will defend that program until we have a REAL solution for it!

Like I said, that's the Orwellian messaging problem: trying to have it both ways.

Keep up the good work. War is Peace!

the Senators also acknowledged that other reauthorizations did not include means to stop metadata collection. Clearly...Congress does not want to stop metadata.

The President is charged with executing the laws of Congress, woo, and while I agree with you that metadata needs to be reformed, you are asking the President to go against the express wishes of Congress...with a "patchwork of authorities."

And for what, precisely? )

is not going against express wishes, the argument is either dishonest or ignorant.

Please show the executing requirement in the law as opposed to discretion, councilor.

That's simply not true.

The Senator's letter says, "We also believe that you have the authority to implement your proposal now, rather than continuing to reauthorize the existing bulk collection program in 90-day increments."

And Gen Clapper says, " the government has sought a 90-day reauthorization of the existing program"

Both agree that the President is continuing to request (and get) 90 day extensions for the bulk collection. The Senators are clearly saying that the President has the authority to stop requesting extensions. They are asking the President to stop asking for extensions.

It is clear that the President stands squarely behind Gen Clapper and Gen Clapper does not want to end bulk data collection.

but he believes he lacks the authority to do so without Congress....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/27/fact-sheet-administration-s-proposal-ending-section-215-bulk-telephony-m

Note...the President did implement the reforms he could do on his own.

I explain this a little more in my post # 95 about Congressional intent...and the intent of Congress has been clear since 2006, all the reauthorizations of Section 215, and the House's latest bill. The Congress does not wish to end bulk collection.

When Wyden and Udall talk about "authority" they are not talking about power, per se....they are talking about execution of the laws, of the clear intent of Congress. I understand their point...I just think they woefully underestimate the ability of the House to draw articles.

Senators are saying. Gen Clapper didnt deny that.

execute, to maintain the bulk collection because the bulk collection fulfills the clear intent of section 215? There's really not an "alternate" to the bulk collection itself, although the access to it can and has been modified.

What President Obama is asking Congress to do is to clarify that point. Can Section 215 be discharged in another manner?

Wyden and Udall have noted that the President can stop the bulk collection through dereliction, but they also noted that the House's latest bill does not stop the collection....merely modifies the access. So he would be going against the express will of Congress...and that's always dicey.

And note....Wyden and Udall cannot point to anything within the Patriot Act that gives the President discretion on this point.

So I think the President is frustratingly, technically correct on this point. We are at an impasse with a Congress that wants to deal with this in 2015, and pursue the Benghazi impeachment of BHO and HRC.

to Gen Clapper. I find your attempts at finding excuses for the president very strange for a liberal. You are liberal are you not?

He doesn't need legislation to stop bulk collection under the current system. He (mistakenly) believes that sec 215 authorizes bulk collection of phone metadata, but he doesn't believe that it requires him to do so.

Several people have already stated this but you seem to want to believe that it's not true.

Obama is extending this program at his own request.

You brought it all out, front and center!

The excuses crowd has run out of them completely.

Well said.

because this puts the nuts and bolts out there on display, while others are trying to argue who manufactured the blueprints. Dismantle it. Period.

Is possibly the most absurd meme I have come across in 40 years.

current admin has decided to interpret 215 in a way that is clearly false and not what the writers of the bill say they intended.....they do this by stretching the word relevant to mean everything.....potus could stop that with a call

also general warrants that cover 60,000 customers at a time are clearly illegal

you really should read before commenting on, the Senators acknowledge they are asking the President to use a "patchwork" approach in the absence of Congressional action.

Look...you and I agree the cat needs to be skinned. We just disagree on how to do it.

in order to prevent even more water damage.

So what if it is a patch? The damage should be mitigated as much as possible until a proper repair can be achieved, I believe that is all they are asking and I believe it is a reasonable request. I also believe that this is what we disagree on rather than how to do a proper fix which I actually do agree with you on.

So I agree with you that a patchwork could be used, but there's a more fundamental problem.....the Congress hasn't indicated it wants this to stop.

and him.

If they refuse to do the job, the President should do whatever he can do to at least mitigate some of the damage. Unlike Republicans, I applaud his efforts to do so with his executive power in other areas where they have refused to act. His recent flurry of EOs were a good thing and not illegal as republicans are claiming. He should continue doing so, this is one area that he can do something and without even having to use an EO.

Don't you agree?

I apologize for my strained analogy and use of terms like "drying in" which is what we in construction and restoration work call the temporary measures used to cover areas of the roof that are damaged or only sheathed prior to being able to get a roof crew in to do the job properly, in my world, it makes sense.

President to act against the clear wishes of Congress. I agree he should do something, but I think this proposed scheme is poorly planned, and I think the President is correct when he indicates that Section 215 reform (and the subsequent modification of Smith v Maryland requires statute. Look.....he was dead on correct when he said that about DADT.

More effective in the short term is what is happening at the NSA...an overhaul of regulations regarding who can collect what and how it can be used.

I also think, seriously, that the metadata issue is overblown....paralell construction is a greater danger to us all.

to change what is admittedly just my own opinion, I believe it was a good idea and a reasonable request by those legislators. You disagree, it happens.

The "clear wishes" of Congress in this case are a grant of discretionary authority to the executive. If the president chooses not to exercise the power granted to him, he is 100% within your "clear wishes."

The inserted section 501 under section 215 uses the word may in discussing applications to the FISA court. May means that the executive has the discretion to make such an application, but is not required to do it. Contrast the use of may with the later shalls in the section, which direct how the court is to consider such an application. Congress specifically chose to grant the executive the discretion to make such a choice. It is a blatant lie for the executive to argue otherwise.

Long story short, your argument about intent is irrelevant because the text is clear. May is discretionary and shall is a command. Had Congress used the word shall in the beginning of the section, then one could reasonably argue that Congress had to change the law in order to prevent the data collection. That, however, is not the case.

The President abhors this spying and won't accept merely a patch! Gosh darn it, he will DEFEND this spying until it can be destroyed the right way!

Just amazing, what we are fed and expected to believe.

I don't really understand why, but I don't really understand why people believe other nonsense like voodoo economics and the earth must be only 6,000 years old because there pastor or economic guru "says so" either.

People are funny that way, only none of this stuff is a joke and the consequences are far more dangerous than the laughter.

The source is telling.

on WHEN to skin it, as in, never, or at least as long as Obama supports not skinning it. Everyone is familiar with that particular "kick the can down the road" scenario.

NSA and the Obama administration are applying it is unconstitutional.

Here is a great article from the EFF on the history of the Fourth Amendment:

https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/generalwarrantsmemo.pdf

Considering that our Revolution was fought in great part against the writs (or warrants) of assistance and that the orders that the NSA has been obtaining from the FISA courts are just as vague and general as those British writs or warrants of assistance, considering that John Adams himself objected to the use of those vague, general warrants, it is disgusting that a person would claim to be a professor of Constitutional Law and defend the NSA's general warrants.

We live in an electronic age. Our homes extend electronically beyond the walls of our houses.

The NSA surveillance is wrong. The current right-wing court may approve it, but that does not make it right, and in my view, it does not make it constitutional. Not at all.

Tell me. What is left of the Fourth Amendment?

The Supreme Court has torn so many loopholes in it never bothering to interpret it so as to be relevant to the lives we live today that there is almost nothing left.

We need to make government violation of the Fourth Amendment a crime punished by a prison sentence. As it is today, violating the Fourth Amendment is viewed a joke by our law enforcement. Very sad.

The word it uses is may, not shall. Thus, the application is discretionary, not mandatory.

It's been the norm during my lifetime.

agree with you.

I agree.

that way.

of Congressional action. They aren't lying so much as they want the President to do Congress' s job.

Take action to stop it. Not when the timing is convenient, but now, not when it is perfect, but now.

Hmmm. Who was it that said perfect is the enemy of the good?

Gosh, I can't remember.

him to. Very simple.

powers, but why the last part needs Congressional authority....

Which I think they should give.

never have I wasted my vote as I did on this one.

He doesn't really care what history will think of him, apparently, either.

ass and fixes it.

lacking any semblance of honor to me.

Made worse by said tactical advantage boiling down to hoping the meanies don't say anything mean though it is dead certain they will regardless of outcomes.

You also send a strong message justifying apathy, Democrats can't do shit that is beneficial and right because TeaPubliKlans will say "boo".

That isn't leadership it is cowardice and part of the "reward" for always giving the fuckers a pass for their wanton criminality and treasons time and time again in the name of commodity (which only degrades with every havoc they are allowed to inflict without consequence rather than the extolled opposite and is a lie that naivete cannot plausibly excuse).

and until 215 is changed...and that's not the Executive's job.

legislation getting rid of 215. He can challenge Congress to do it. He could have vetoed the NDAA, and explained why he did it (because it contained provisions authorizing indefinite detention without charge), and dared congress to override the veto. Not only did he not do that, he fought like crazy to have the indefinite detention provisions put back after a federal judge struck them down. He hasn't done anything like this. He has shown he's a firm believer in the surveillance state. Don't paint him as a victim of the pit of vipers in congress. He's the President of the United States. He enjoys a bully pulpit, like the 43 guys that came before him.

point.....

The President did ask the Congress in March to move up the scheduled 2015 reauthorization of 215 to now. He can't force them. Wyden and Udall can bring legislation to the floor tomorrow.

"Nobody could have foreseen what is happening in Iraq!"

I mean, really? Boston bombings ... "nobody saw that coming".

Say one thing (or make a nice-sounding speech) and then either doing nothing or amplification of the nefarious policy.

I thought that was clear

Go to FISA court and get this order. 215 allows the government to seek this data. It does not compel them to seek this data.

The way this would be is to have the President meet with the Attorney General (or telephone, IM or send a snail mail) saying, roughly, I order you to stop sending lawyers to the FISA court to continue getting these orders. The Attorney General then would follow his order. The FISA court's order allowing this collection would then stop. The NSA would then stop getting the metadata. (I know, stop laughing, like a court order would ever stop these dudes.)

Can collect does not equal must collect

However, if you send me one perhaps you, too, shall be immortalized.

he thinks they are legally capable of doing without legislation.....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/27/fact-sheet-administration-s-proposal-ending-section-215-bulk-telephony-m


However, I don't think Section 215, (501) gives the President the discretion you think it does, and I think that's why the President is saying he needs congressional authority to resolve the issue: is Congress allowing the NSA to stop all bulk collection?

See, Section 215 also outlines how you can access this data, right? But inherent in that is the obvious Congressional wish that there be data to access. In other words, when you make rules for citizens to visit and use the materials in the National Archives, you are clearly intending that the NA staff ALSO maintain and protect the collection and make it available....that was the point behind the rules.

Here....when you make rules about accessing data, you clearly want that data accessible, somewhere. The intent of Congress is clear.

So as the Executive, he has to execute the laws to fulfill the intent of Congress...and what he's saying is....clarify the intent. Does Congress want the bulk collection to stop?

I'm guessing (and that is the best I can do given your...disjointed...post) you say that Congress, when granting a broad scope of power to the President must specify the exact parameters of the power or else the executive must go to the edges of said power or the President will be in violation of the Constitution.

If indeed that is your point (and lordy I have searched high and low to find your exact point) that is an unique view in American jurisprudence. A broad grant of power is exactly that, a broad grant of power. An executive is never compelled to go to the extent of the power. For example, if ten years from now, President Ryan asks for and is given an act of war against Australia. Constitutionally, that means all gloves are off and he can prosecute the war in the way he sees fit. Putting aside for this hypothetical the various treaty obligations, what if President Ryan decides to kill the firstborn son of every family in occupied Melbourne. Congress granted him the war power. Must he, Constitutionally, find the end of this power?

the Executive is obliged to uphold Section 215.

Now....the Senators could have legislation on the floor tomorrow, instead of kicking the can down the road to 2015. Instead..they want the President to cover their asses with an EO. Not going to happen.

Jeebus....clapper makes me shudder.

The status quo won't be changing any time soon.

Like Democrats. And Liberals. And Progressives. And those who believe in Freedom. From 1992,

Their lame excuses are telling.

We are drowning in bullshit.

-- Mal

and isn't sitting in federal prison for lying before Congress.

There is a lot of that going around these days, the rule of law has become meaningless and is only used to keep peasants in place while our lords and ladies in government and high finance are immune.

They simply exist above us legally and can kill us off or steal our house via a bankster with no repercussions.

I'm not afraid to stand in bad company for a good reason - like following the damn Constitution, and if it makes "good company" look bad, so be it.

If they were "good company" to begin with, I wouldn't be standing there in the first place.

Like we are supposed to be grateful that he did that.....

He lied to Congress...he should have been fired. But, he's still there and has the "Office of the President" supporting him.

Kind of not like what we were taught in High School in CIVIC'S class....

instead of repeatedly kicking the ball back to the White House...

I'm not holding my breath, though...

Even if it is only "a patchwork" temporary solution meant to hinder unconstitutional activities until they do act.

good isn't good enough unless it is perfect, right?

The best thing, the only thing, for the unenlightened citizens to do is trust that Daddy knows whats best and not to question anything Daddy does.


[center][/center]

up its own mess.

If there was ever a golden shovel award, msanthrope, you should win it .

Gee, I've heard that so many times, but it is fascinating to hear that it is now being applied to Obama stopping the data collection, but can't because it won't be perfect.

It is really interesting to see how these arguments get made only to be abandoned when convenient.

Perfect is the enemy of the good.

Of course all one really has to do is look at the constant defenders of the spy state...they cannot come up with even a decent argument anymore...just CUZ I SAID SO...lame and pathetic imo.

BOG thanks their god every day. But now when he could end spying on Americans, they insist on perfection. Hypocrites