It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Allows the FBI to access your records without a warrant or probably cause. It forces any third party, including doctors, libraries, bookstores, universities, and Internet service providers- to turn over records on their clients or customers.
Forbids disclosure of their seizures. In other words, the FBI can, without a warrant, review what books you are reading and forbid the librarians from informing you that you are being watched.
No longer requires the government to show evidence that the subjects of search orders are an “agent of foreign power,” a requirement that previously protected Americans against abuse of this authority.
Frees the FBI from showing reasonable suspicion that the records are related to criminal activity, much less the requirement to show “probable cause” that is listed in the Fourth Amendment.
Removes judicial oversight, a part of checks and balance. Judges would not have the authority to deny any investigation.
Allows surveillance orders to be issued based on one’s First Amendment activities. You could come under investigation because of the books you read, the Web sites you visit, letters to the editor you write, or even attending this rally.
Forbids disclosure of an investigation, denying the individual the right to challenge illegitimate searches.
Violates the Fourth Amendment, which says the government cannot conduct a search without a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime.
Violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech by prohibiting recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, where there is no real need for secrecy.
Violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to conduct investigations of American citizens in part of exercising their free speech.
Violates the Fifth Amendment by failing to provide notice – even after the fact – to persons whose privacy has been compromised. Notice is a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
"Washington Post - June 24, 2005 - The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed."
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
"Global Research, November 2, 2007 - The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed HR 1955 titled the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. This bill is one of the most blatant attacks against the Constitution yet and actually defines thought crimes as homegrown terrorism. If passed into law, it will also establish a commission and a Center of Excellence to study and defeat so called thought criminals. Unlike previous anti-terror legislation, this bill specifically targets the civilian population of the United States and uses vague language to define homegrown terrorism. Amazingly, 404 of our elected representatives from both the Democrat and Republican parties voted in favor of this bill. There is little doubt that this bill is specifically targeting the growing patriot community that is demanding the restoration of the Constitution. "
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
November 20th, 2007 by Alan Gura
Washington, D.C.—Today, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will hear the case of Heller v. District of Columbia, and decide whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to own guns. At issue is a 31-year-old Washington, D.C. law banning handguns and requiring that all shotguns and rifles be kept unloaded and either trigger-locked or disassembled at all times. There is no exception for self-defense.
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.