Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Obama Admin - Supreme Court Lacks Authority to Hear NSA Privacy Case

page: 1
42
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
+22 more 
posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Ok who was expecting this, please raise your hand! So now tell me who or what is ruling this country, eh?

Normally I am not so short winded. But I need to run.



AFP - President Barack Obama's administration is urging the Supreme Court not to take up the first case it has received on controversial National Security Agency cybersnooping.




US government attorneys argue that the Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to take the case, filed in July by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).




The US administration also believes the EIPC suit cannot move forward because it argues the court lacks authority under the 2001 Patriot Act to weigh in on the legality of NSA activities. "This court lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court," the secret intelligence affairs court, Verrilli added.


US asks top court not to take case on NSA cyber-snooping



+9 more 
posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Oh I have like two more minutes here. I keep trying to tell you all that I have no party affiliation. This is not Republican vs Democrat vs independent. Look at what is happening to our country. Just look!

Come on, can anyone tell me that they agree that our highest court should not be able to hear this case? Groan...



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 10:15 PM
link   
The people bringing the issue to the court are argued that they don't have standing because

The Patriot Act of 2001 only allows challenges from businesses that receive government orders to turn over business records or from the U.S. government.


They also didn't bother going through the lower courts and went straight to the Supreme Court.

To be completely honest, I don't think the SCOTUS will hear the argument. Not because they're secret tyrannical monsters under the bed, but because they will probably agree with the DOJ that, under the law, the party has no jurisdiction.

More info here and here.


+2 more 
posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


I think this is a case of legal maneuvering (pun definitely intended).

Why deal with an issue if you can legally wiggle out of doing so? Nothing ventured, nothing gained and it is the way almost all lawyers think.

This one bears watching because if the Supreme's decide not to hear it ON THAT BASIS then that clearly says that those that make the laws are above the law - i.e. this country as we knew it no longer exists and it will most definitely be time for pitchforks & torches...



edit on 10/19/2013 by Riffrafter because: (no reason given)


+8 more 
posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 10:27 PM
link   
If the supreme court doesn't have jurisdiction then who the hell does, small handful of guys in dark lit room somewhere can only be privy to the information. Why does the NSA remind me of Nazi Germany? does anyone else get this impression?


+7 more 
posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 10:27 PM
link   

links234
The people bringing the issue to the court are argued that they don't have standing because

The Patriot Act of 2001 only allows challenges from businesses that receive government orders to turn over business records or from the U.S. government.


They also didn't bother going through the lower courts and went straight to the Supreme Court.

To be completely honest, I don't think the SCOTUS will hear the argument. Not because they're secret tyrannical monsters under the bed, but because they will probably agree with the DOJ that, under the law, the party has no jurisdiction.

More info here and here.


Funny thing is, SCOTUS has jurisdiction over EVERY law Congress passes and the Executive signs... according to the Constitution.

They could overturn the provision of the 'law' that limits the scope of who has the right to challenge the law and thus nullify that part of the law, and if there's an 'all-or-none' clause in the law, the entire law can be overturned thus rendering it entirely null-and-void.

And the guy in charge is a Constitutional "scholar"?
Where's my Crayons- I'm gonna make a few amendments.

edit on 10/19/2013 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


Obama would claim authority if Moses, Jesus and Buddha came down from the mountain and confronted him. In his own mind he's king of the world and what he thinks is right goes.

Hopefully the SCOTUS will take this up and hammer the gov with it. That said I doubt it will happen as I'm sure the very folks (NSA) under the spotlight will just go to their files and pull out the one labeled "Supreme Court." Just like they probably did with Justice Roberts before he did his 180 degree turn on Obamacare.



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


Congress created the court. It cannot be lawfully above the supreme court.

Do you think they're watching you? Because under congressional investigation and oversight. the nsa maintains that they are not watching citizens in the United States.
edit on 19-10-2013 by Nephalim because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 10:44 PM
link   


The people bringing the issue to the court are argued that they don't have standing because
The Patriot Act of 2001 only allows challenges from businesses that receive government orders to turn over business records or from the U.S. government.


True - so to meet the letter of the law EPIC only need find a business that's been hammered by TPA/FISA and file it on their behalf. If they're serious about this filing I'm sure that won't be too hard.

BTW - You have to laugh when the law states one of the only parties the gov't allows challenges from is um....the gov't.





They also didn't bother going through the lower courts and went straight to the Supreme Court.


Yes but that is more a matter of precedence not a matter of law. There is nothing preventing SCOTUS from hearing the case in this regard if they want to weigh in.




To be completely honest, I don't think the SCOTUS will hear the argument. Not because they're secret tyrannical monsters under the bed, but because they will probably agree with the DOJ that, under the law, the party has no jurisdiction.


I agree but I think it's more of the "they don't want to touch this one with a 10 ft. pole" variety and will use all of your arguments (unofficially & off the record quoting "unnamed" sources within the court).

It will be interesting to watch...

edit on 10/19/2013 by Riffrafter because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


The Obama administration has become so anti constitutional that if people can no see it now they will never will, but rest assure they are grasping for straws, see nowhere in the patriot act that actually is no a permanent bill, does it say that any branch of the government is nullify.

I can not believe that the administration actually are trying to do something like this.

What a whole bunch of traitors, no bill in the nation can ever nullify any part of the government.

Obama and his cohorts need to be slap with the constitution papers.

I think that they are afraid that do to the nature of the anti patriot act the whole entire piece of crap can be scrapped along with the NSA Nazi agency, for been anti constitutional as it violates plenty of laws



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 11:08 PM
link   
It's way past time for a article 5 convention.
Start lobbying your states legislatures.
Washington will never reform itself, we must do it for them.



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   

links234
The people bringing the issue to the court are argued that they don't have standing because

The Patriot Act of 2001 only allows challenges from businesses that receive government orders to turn over business records or from the U.S. government.


They also didn't bother going through the lower courts and went straight to the Supreme Court.

To be completely honest, I don't think the SCOTUS will hear the argument. Not because they're secret tyrannical monsters under the bed, but because they will probably agree with the DOJ that, under the law, the party has no jurisdiction.

More info here and here.


Well then how about taking that statute of the Patriot Act to the Supreme Court and then immediately afterwards, the NSA. Nothing should trump our Supreme Court. This Patriot Act has been a thorn in our butts.

What bothers me even more is that the White-house has a team of lawyers working against the best interests of Americans.



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Double post yet again... Oh gosh, I need a new mouse along with a new government.

And one more thing... The majority of the American populace is clueless to such matters. But maybe if I tell you, you will tell two friends, then they will tell two friends, and so on and so on...
edit on 19-10-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


Very simply this is exactly what the NSA is doing, gathering info on all supremes, congress and Pres and any one else who threatens their domain and funding. The people dare not challenge them less something in their past, no mater how minor, come out to bite them in the but.

Consider Elliot Switzer. After he wrote an Op ed in the Washington Post stating how the states were aware of the predatory lending and wanted to stop it , no less than a month he was charged with affiliation with prostitution and was replaced by someone who immediately came out and admitted to adultery as did his wife.


Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices. ad_icon What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no. Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

washington post

It seems to be thus with everyone. Make one mistake in life and your are in the NSA's crosshairs. FDR set the standard and we are still living with it.



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


I am laughing, the more I read about this attempt by, whom? Obama lawyers? telling the highest court of the land not to take cases?, you got to be crazy, or obtuse or mentally challenged.

Since when Obama is now the US dictator, I guess he forgot that the Supreme court is part of the government after all.

I am still trying to make sense of this attempt by Obama to get over the supreme court.

Doesn't he know that the government have three branches or he is so stupid that he thinks he and congress are the only ones that can create, nullified and change laws.

And he is a what? a constitutional lawyer?



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


The reason the White House lawyers get under my skin so much, is due to a previous case that I posted about at ATS.

The FISA court found that the NSA spying was unconstitutional. But this finding, along with its 84 pages was stamped top secret. A congressman wanted the finding alone, (and not the 84 pages) released to the public. The FISA court ruled it was permissible. BUT Holder and the White House Attorneys appealed this verdict. And they lost! So off they went to go to yet another court last I heard. Since when should court findings of unconstitutional acts be top secret from the public?
edit on 19-10-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


Because that is how the government gets away with corruption and because the Patriot act was never challenged in the supreme court.


EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW — These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

The unique position of the Supreme Court stems, in large part, from the deep commitment of the American people to the Rule of Law and to constitutional government. The United States has demonstrated an unprecedented determination to preserve and protect its written Constitution, thereby providing the American "experiment in democracy" with the oldest written Constitution still in force.

The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society’s need for order and the individual’s right to freedom.

To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government.

The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.


I think Obamacaca needs to be reminded what the powers of the Supreme court are

law2.umkc.edu...



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Hey did anyone notice my source? It is a website from France. Anymore this is the only way to get accurate information since all we get is propaganda nowadays.



posted on Oct, 20 2013 @ 12:03 AM
link   

elouina
Double post yet again... Oh gosh, I need a new mouse along with a new government.

And one more thing... The majority of the American populace is clueless to such matters. But maybe if I tell you, you will tell two friends, then they will tell two friends, and so on and so on...
edit on 19-10-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)


It's the folks in Greenbelt, Maryland who review all our communications, not you; they must plan on using the double posts to discredit you... "You're going to believe elouina; but elouina can't even post correctly... how can you possibly believe someone who double posts?" :-)

No worries, it happens to all of us; I think the new reply button is a touch sensitive.



posted on Oct, 20 2013 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


elouina, I have no remedy for this other than what could be mustered from the individual American.

This thread describes the core of tyranny, and could never be on top of the site long enough. I also can't personally thank you long enough. Whatever death scream for the republic (in small case) that has been reserved should be bellowed right now.

Words otherwise would not only fail me, but be worthless to the rest still willfully sleeping... they have to be with this.






top topics



 
42
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join