Patriot Act...My Congressman's response to my E-mail

If Congressmen took time out of their day to respond to -every- e-mail and letter they receive personally, they'd never be able to get away from the keyboard or put down a pen.

I got to talk with Ike Skelton - back when he was still representing this district. He'd frequent a restaurant I worked at. A lot of the customer base has political and business representatives. Most of the other customers didn't have a clue who he was (and the overwhelming majority are locals in his district).

As for the issue - he didn't give you "I am absolutely against this" - so you're upset.

The response given is, more or less, to clarify what the law is all about and indicate that they are paying more attention to ensuring the books are changed to curb abuse of the policies.

I've used the phrase "herding chickens" to describe things, before... but this is another one of those instances. Congressmen often deal with people who are completely incoherent and misinformed about what a law actually states. We see this time and again on ATS (and other political discussion forums).

Similarly, people are hardly able to review a law before their legislators vote on it (not like we have the time to read it, or the time to look up all of the citations of other laws, anyway) - and it's often a 120+ page of seemingly conflicting and downright silly proposals.

So, it's a two-way street of confusion.

great our fascsit government knows what type of guns you own and where your money is.

simply visiting a website like this gives the government the right to check you out and invade your privacy.

big brother has always been watching now they know what you buy what you read and what your spending habits are.

@#$%$#$% the patriot act. yeah i used the f-bomb i didnt wanna circumvent ats censors.

but if the f-bomb should ever be allowed it should be for the patriot act.

reply to post by neo96

great our fascsit government knows what type of guns you own and where your money is.

This is nothing new, and not at all associated with the Patriot Act.

simply visiting a website like this gives the government the right to check you out and invade your privacy.

No, it doesn't. Though going onto any website and spewing out plans to blow things up or kill certain people would not be advisable. The most they could do is get a court order for ATS to release user data and records to law enforcement authorities - but that's really nothing new, either.

big brother has always been watching now they know what you buy what you read and what your spending habits are.

They really couldn't care less, honestly. What they worry about are people living in the middle of Chicago trying to buy 2 tons of chemical fertilizer out of the blue and with no apparent need for it.

Maybe he's just pioneering the concept of "fertilizer prospecting" - but if such an individual is also making calls to known terrorist affiliates - that's certainly cause for concern.

There are not enough people or computers to even begin to pay attention to the average person.

@#$%$#$% the patriot act. yeah i used the f-bomb i didnt wanna circumvent ats censors.

but if the f-bomb should ever be allowed it should be for the patriot act.

Citing the actual law, tell me what is so bad about it.

reply to post by OptimusSubprime


I would respond with denying him of your vote AND how/where you spend your money. Do a little research into the businesses in your district that made campain contributions and write a letter that informs them that you will no longer do business with them because of their support for said Congressman.

reply to post by OptimusSubprime


I am not sure what your stance is on "civil liberties", which is the only language your Representative used to describe your natural rights, but it would be nice if you took the time to educate this moron on the difference between unalienable rights and "civil liberties".

Just one example of how the term "civil liberty" is being defined demonstrates the profound problem with "civil liberties":

civil liberties n. rights or freedoms given to the people by the First Amendment to the Constitution, by common law, or legislation, allowing the individual to be free to speak, think, assemble, organize, worship, or petition without government (or even private) interference or restraints. These liberties are protective in nature, while civil rights form a broader concept and include positive elements such as the right to use facilities, the right to an equal education, or the right to participate in government.

Rights that are given are not rights at all, they are privileges, and what can be given can be taken away, either unlawfully, or in the instance of "civil liberties" or "legal rights" legally taken away. This is why that poser Representative of yours was so carefully to frame rights as "civil liberties".

Unalienable rights, on the other hand, are non-transferable and can not be lawfully taken away.

How should you respond? Perhaps you could politely tell that poser that he can take his "civil liberties" and shove them where the sun don't shine, and either begin zealously acting to defend the unalienable rights of his constituents, as is his mandate, or face the consequences of not doing so.

There are many who would take issue with the distinctions I am making, and even many who would argue that there "is no such thing" as natural rights. These people may as well be making the argument that there is no such thing as natural sunlight, and that the sun is no more self evident than natural rights are. Some people just insist on hiding in the dark in order to avoid seeing the light, just so they can convince themselves that it is dark everywhere.

All rights are natural and cannot be granted to people, but exist inherently within them. While the definition I linked claims that First Amendment rights were "given" to the people, the rules of statutory construction require that each and every word be given significance.

A careful reading of the first Ten Amendments (The Bill of Rights) reveals that they are no where near a grant of rights, but rather prohibitions placed upon government. The Ninth Amendment directly refutes the online dictionary I linked and makes clear that the enumerated rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage any other rights retained by the people. This Amendment is making perfectly clear that the Bill of Rights are not "given" rights, but rights acknowledged by Constitution and prohibitions set in place to ensure their protection.

You got a prepared email unfortunately, register with your rep's office via email alert and go to where he is at and ask him there directly face to face. Never write your Congressperson because you will always get a generic reply. The only true way to get a solid reply is to confront them face to face.

Rule of engagement for a Member of Congress is to be respectful, nice, non threatening and be considerate and you will get what you are seeking. Also, do not open carry and weapon or be under the influence of any narcotic.

reply to post by QuantumDisciple


Great idea. Perhaps by not only taking away your vote, which "supposedly" means hundreds of votes, but also stating your intention to no longer do business with any company that pledged financial support... maybe it will get him to think a little bit harder.

Also, I would not only e-mail, but also send a written letter or typed & printed, then sent via US postal service. Perhaps following up with a phone call would be a good idea too.

I, for one, believe the system is too corrupt and too broken to fix from within... however that doesn't mean we just let them run amok, we have to keep pressure on these people and contantly remind them, yes they do work for us.

reply to post by cwilson


I would honor the businesses with a letter explaining why you and your family will no longer do business with them. If you wish to put more energy into this, let some of your relatives, friends, and neighbors know why/what you did. You may want to let the new businesses know why they have earned your business. You may want to check how politically active your church is and stop tithing if need be.

I have zero tolerance for politician's that have sold this country and it's people down a river. I have/will not vote for anyone who is for the Patriot Act. I vote with my wallet as well. I just hope others start doing the same. Turn off the TV and start doing your own research. A government is a reflection of it's people.

reply to post by CitizenNum287119327


I seriously doubt if he is in his mind now. You have any idea how many people probably complained. Thats the reason for a form letter. If there is a desire to further your complaints I would continue to stay up on what he is doing and do wxactly what you have done. Town meetings are good but be aware anyone who attends those meetings are recorded and checked on. I just wanted you to be made aware of this. From there it is your decision if you won't be intimidated from attending. I never let that stop me. If I am going to get involved then get involved. All of this isn't a game where you can just stick your toe in and then change your mind.

reply to post by OptimusSubprime


I did something similar and i just got a computer letter. Already prewritten most likely not even by the congressman. They send the same thing to everyone. Theres no point in doing it.

Gingrey's letter was just as form and just as trite and dismissive.

Don't feel alone.

I doubt it was really his letter - probably an aide. Most I think most of us letter writers get is a tally mark on a yellow legal pad.

Ok so the Republicans 'wrote and signed' the Pat Act into law in 4 days. Then the Republicans formed DHS in about 4 weeks.

The only people who voted against it were Democrats and liberal leaning independents - whom the Republicans instantly labeled 'Un-American and 'Traitors'.

Now this behemoth has had over 8 years to grow into an complex, evolved system- like a cancer on our Constitutional Rights. And every extension that has come up for a vote has had the majority- if not 100% of Republicans backing it's continuance.

And you are still voting Republican and expecting a different outcome? Seriously?

HAHAHAHAHA!

reply to post by Stratus9


By definition your last statement literally means insanity.

reply to post by OptimusSubprime


I'd ask for specifics. I know you won't get them, but ask, if this is so important, what have been the benefits so far. WHO have we caught uing this Patriot Act? HOW has this made us safer? Talking points are all well and good, but HAS it saved lives? HAVE we caught terrorists?
It's like the TSA. They say it's for safety, but how many terrorists have the TSA caught? How many bombs have they detected?

Or is the Patriot Act like my flying monkey repellent? It works because there are no flying monkeys, right?

my response would be," why congressman are you so worried about taking the rights and liberties away from the american citizens when you have done absolutely nothing regarding the border issue"

From a few talks I've had with interns the key is persistence, persistence, persistence. If you show that you really care about what's going then you should talk to your congressperson about it, often. Ask for their stance on issues, ask why the voted they way they did. Be persistent, the staffers will get to know your name, then the actual representative will get to know your name. Remember, you're only one of 710,000 constituents! You, as an individual, don't even make up a tenth of a percent of your district.

reply to post by Aim64C


The number of representatives has not increased since 1923, when each representative had 212,000 constituents each. They now have over 710,000 each. Not all of them voted. There's a problem with under-representation in this country. We need more congressmen. I know, I know...they're the bad guys, but we're not being fully represented as a nation, as the republic we're intended to be.

Almost a third of the population consider themselves independent, we have two 'independent' people in congress, they're both in the senate. If you ever feel like your representative isn't representing you, it's probably because they aren't.

Originally posted by Stratus9
Ok so the Republicans 'wrote and signed' the Pat Act into law in 4 days. Then the Republicans formed DHS in about 4 weeks.

The only people who voted against it were Democrats and liberal leaning independents - whom the Republicans instantly labeled 'Un-American and 'Traitors'.

Now this behemoth has had over 8 years to grow into an complex, evolved system- like a cancer on our Constitutional Rights. And every extension that has come up for a vote has had the majority- if not 100% of Republicans backing it's continuance.

And you are still voting Republican and expecting a different outcome? Seriously?

HAHAHAHAHA!

I'm not a Republican, I'm a Conservative Libertarian. I do not subscribe to the Democrat/Republican paradigm, but unfortunately our society as a whole does, and in order to be taken seriously in a national or statewide election a candidate has to be one or the other, although there are a few exceptions to that rule. Having said that, save your "laughter". You fail to point out the fact that the same Democrats and left leaning Independents that were against the Patriot act 9 years ago are now for it, because their guy is the President. You failed to point out that glaring example of hypocrisy. You are also probably not from the 2nd district of Virginia, so you have no recollection of this congressman's campaign promises, but I do. I stated in my OP that I was hesitant to vote for him, but I decided to give the guy a chance with the hopes that he is who he said he was before the election... it turns out that he isn't, but what else is new. This is actually the first time I voted in 10 years, because there has been no one worthy of me getting off of my couch in a decade (the last time was Allen Keyes for President in 2000). I have always refused to vote for the lesser of two evils, but it would appear that this time I did. I won't make that mistake again.

Besides, I am now of the opinion that America's problems can not and will not be fixed at the Federal level, and that it will be the individual state legislatures and Governors that will have to fix it. I could care less who gets elected in 2012 at the federal level, because it doesn't make any difference, they are all the same. (except for Ron Paul, but he won't be able to do much if elected because of the push back he will receive in Congress)

...You fail to point out the fact that the same Democrats and left leaning Independents that were against the Patriot act 9 years ago are now for it, because their guy is the President.

It's worse than that. I believe that some democrats are now supporting the Pat Act for the same reason progressive Germans supported the Nazi constitution: fear.