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

Helious

elouina
reply to post by Helious

 

Woaaa is right... Gasp..... We need to spread the word, call our representatives, get involved with the party we are most comfy with, or even run for office ourselves. Violence is not the way!

edit on 20-10-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)

Despite what Obama or Bush before him has led Americans to believe. We live by a structured rule of law. That structure is not up for debate as it is mandated by the Constitution. Because they are wiping their ass with it and pretending like it doesn't matter doesn't make it less criminal.

Hey I know things are pretty bad. Thus why I try to prove it to as many people as possible. But I am not trying to provoke violence. There are over 300 million of us. A demonstration with enough of us would be a stampede. I don't have much free time, but more and more, I keep thinking that I need to make time and organize. But will anyone show up? Sigh.... We all here knowthe problems, but the rest of America doesn't give a rats arse. What do they teach in school these days? It certainly can't be the constitution.

HA HA HA HA Yes, Mien Further we can not have a supreme court ruling on Constutional issue ... Heil Obama .... the village idiot is speaking ..... Emporer O is wearing no clothes .... quick look away before you hurt your eyes

reply to post by Helious


You would be very interested what Karen Hudas said in an interview today. She says the game theory modeling is projecting that "rule of law" will over take the corruption in the banking system. I don't know what will happen. She has just

On the off chance the SC actually decides to hear this just imagine the howls of outrage from the administration and the national security establishment.Not that I expect the Supremes to somehow grow a set overnight after all these are the folks who think that corporations are people. They don't like to mess with this sort of thing.

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.

oh, you mean it is ok to be under the same laws of the old "mother Russia" as long as "they make it legal"?... Because that's exactly what it is...

Of course, as long as the ruling elite "write laws" that allow the destruction of this Republic "it is ok"... You seriously need to look back at history and learn a bit from it.

I find it ironic that in your avatar you define your mood as "oppressed" when you seem to be fine with socialist/fascist oppression...

Helious

Calm your mind my young padawan. You're not the only one in America seething to a boil in the righteous anger we should all feel about the current direction of our country.

Those that perpetrate these injustices would love nothing more for you and a few buddies to take up arms. They would gun you down in spectacular fashion like cattle into the pen and broadcast it on the evening news probably saying the put down a sleeper cell of domestic terrorists.

The time for violence is not yet here, this can be evidenced on a local, county and state level. There are plenty of people still that hold power, real power that would resist what is happening and there is still time to alter course through non violent channels.

I'm not telling you to go out and vote! That's not gonna work on a federal level but I think the problem with the country is on a federal level, who can hold them to account? We all know they have committed multiple crimes but nobody has merit to press charges. When enough states have had enough, when enough Americans force the hand of their local and state officials, perhaps we can push the issue and when we have done all we can (and we are nowhere close) then and only then do I advocate violence.

Generally, I find myself in agreement with you, Helious. More often than not.

Not this time.

Never, in the history of the world, has an injustice been "cured" by simply sitting on one's hands, doing nothing, and hoping it will simply sort itself out. Cures, remedies, always involve being proactive. They require action.

Our young friend imasheep is not wrong, either in his assessment or in the necessary course of treatment. He states his age as 36, and says this is what he has seen just in HIS lifetime. I have 16 years on him, at 52, and can say without reservation that I've seen an even steeper decline over that time period.

It is, however, worse than that, and worse than I've seen in my 52 years.

When imasheep was busy being born, and had yet to notice the decline, I was a 16 year old kid already watching the decline. In 1976, the "Bicentennial Year". I told my dear old dad that I didn't believe the US would live to see a tricentennial. His response to me on that thought was "young sir, you haven't seen the half of it."

He was 47 at the time, and had seen much more than me. This has been an ongoing problem for a long, LONG time. During that time, for the most part, people have just sat on their hands and waited, expecting the situation to sort itself out. It's not going to.

It's only getting worse, and accelerating in it's downhill slide. It's emboldening the enemy.

An Article V Convention is a grand idea, but it will come to naught without teeth behind it.

If we don't grow some teeth, start growling through those teeth, and DEMAND a redress of grievances through those teeth, we will all be lost, and I will be a prophet...

... because the US will NOT live to see a tricentennial.


ETA: I don't know if this has already been posted or not, but my wife was asking for independent confirmation of the story, something other than a French source. She questioned the veracity of the report since it apparently hasn't been very widely trumpeted in the US itself. Well, I reckon there is a reason for that. Be that as it may, here it is, straight from the horse's mouth as it were: In re EPIC

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.

EPIC may not have standing under the Patriot Act, BUT they have standing under the Fourth Amendment (seizure of papers and effects without a warrant following the rule of particularities) if they can demonstrate that any of their phone records were caught unnecessarily in the NSA dragnet. If they can demonstrate harm FROM the law, their standing is not bound BY the law's provisions for legal standing. If it were, no law could ever be challenged.

reply to post by elouina


To be honest, I am actually a little surprised by this. I really did not think that the Supreme Court would be blocked from hearing a case. I mean, who challenges the power of the Supreme Court in the first place? Either you are swinging a huge pair or got a inside track to the court and am just playing a role in a larger game.

Nephalim
reply to post by elouina

 

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

Unfortunately this is not true. Congress can remove appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over some kinds of cases and transfer to another court.

The EPIC suit will not be heard by the Supreme Court for a more simple and not controversial reason, that the Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction over the case, only appellate (meaning it has to be tried first in lower courts). Almost no cases other than State vs State suits are taken up as original jurisdiction.

More frighteningly, the supreme Court could rule that Congress has taken away its appellate jurisdiction as well in these matters, with FISA court as the highest (and only) court.

It is as simple as this...

Link

There are then checks and balances and those were effectively removed long ago. This is a coup 100 years in the making. The players have always been there. It just took a while to satisfy everyone so they would 'accept' what is handed down with little resistance.

The SCOTUS is supposed to be immune from any pressure. POTUS will try to appoint justices with similar views to help with party agenda but there is no certainty. I would think it would be up to them and not the executive branch to decide if it would affect any existing laws, I mean, that is what they are there for.

Our country is following a template another used...

The Enabling Act of 1933 is where you should start to see what is happening in our country now.

mbkennel

More frighteningly, the supreme Court could rule that Congress has taken away its appellate jurisdiction as well in these matters, with FISA court as the highest (and only) court.

Oddly enough, that's not all that frightening. It makes the choice far clearer when they repeat King George III's mistake and remove the avenues to redress our grievances.

Things get a lot more black and white then.

As an aside, a "Star Chamber" court such as the FISA court isn't the proper avenue for a redress, because of the very nature of the secrecy involved.

matafuchs

Our country is following a template another used...

The Enabling Act of 1933 is where you should start to see what is happening in our country now.

The historical record shows that several underground organizations sprang up in Europe some time after, and as a direct result of, that Enabling Act.

As a purely random observation, it's much easier to form underground organizations while a people still has a degree of freedom of motion and communication, and it would make more sense to ALREADY have them in place when the hammer drops, rather than scrambling to try to catch up under pressure.

Yes, I said "when" the hammer drops, not "if".

reply to post by nenothtu


Yes, we are 10-15 years in...first bankrupt the government, then the 'formal military, then disarm, control the info and then make the masses poor for more control and need of assistance from those who can help. When the hammer drops people will fart, beg for Starbucks and cry as there will be no more Candy Crush saga updates. Then, when there is no clean water they might start drinking out of backyard hoses instead of paying more than a gallon of gas for a drink of water as they do now. They can live off the BMI for a few weeks...

Unless people learn the rule of Law, then the only way of dealing with injustice is to complain and wonder why. Check out a website called jurisdictionary, learn the material, and you will have a better understanding of civil law. After that, 1215.org is a good source of how the legal system really works.

If you can manage all that information and try to unlearn what you have been taught in school and seen on tv, then you should have a clearer outlook on the system.

After understanding the system, you will understand that the United States is a corporation that has a president, much like a company has a president. The president has more authority than any of its citizens, because that is how its set up. If a citizen wants to sue the NSA, that's like a customer at Walmart trying to sue the guy that operates the survailence system for spying on him while he shops at Walmart. If you are a 14th amendment citizen of the United States, you are clay to be molded by your polital potters.

Get your language straight, get your philosophy on Law straight, and understand what is really happening to the country from a higher standpoint. Then get all of your family and friends to learn the same. Pressure your school system to bring back civics, the REAL civics, not social studies and government, that's propaganda.

One person can try to take on something as large as the federal government, OR, they can bring their knowledge to many other people and amass an army that can uncorrupt the system from the ground up.

Yeah just play the national security card mr kenyan president. Works all the time. Eric Holder got away with fast and furious the same way. Snooping by the nsa? SCOTUS has no game. Someone by the name of Eric Snowden is still in russia as "a spy" according to our rogue government just for exposing this domestic spying program. He couldnt do it in usa or any other nato country so he did the next best thing and went to hong kong and then to russia for his own safety.

PTB will always use national security and executive orders when they are faced with a tough time. I mean afterall ufos and aliens works the same way, then have some fbi goons show up and claim it was weather ballons or swamp gas.

Taxation without representation is the textbook definition of tyranny! The federal reserve stockholders need arresting and charged with conspiracy and usury. Then maybe we can get a real government and stop being the laughing stock of the entire world.

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).

That bit right there answered the question. If a lawyer is having to ask permission then obviously THEY DO have the authority. This whole thing is like auditing the Fed to me. Ron Paul says it would end the Fed. Well will SCOTUS hearing this case end the program? Just my take on it.

Pimpintology

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).

That bit right there answered the question. If a lawyer is having to ask permission then obviously THEY DO have the authority. This whole thing is like auditing the Fed to me. Ron Paul says it would end the Fed. Well will SCOTUS hearing this case end the program? Just my take on it.

Yeah, good point, but doesn't it bother you that our, "trusted president" has a slew of attorneys working against this? I think this is proof here that he should no longer be a trusted president and that we should treat his every action with well deserved suspicion.

reply to post by elouina


HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU HEARD "THE RULE OF LAW" COME OUT OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND OBAMAM MOUTH???
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS THE MOST ROGUE ADMINISTRATION IN THE HISTORY OF THIS NATION BUT YOU HAVE TO ASK WHY??? WHY ARE THEY BEING SO SECRETIVE? ANSWER, THEY ARE TRYING TO CREATE A SITUATION FOR A "TAKE OVER AND ESTABLISH A DICTATORSHIP TO FURTHER THE "NEW WORLD ORDER"

THEY KEEP SAYING THAT THE U.N. SHOULD RUN OUR ARMY, TAKE OUR GUNS AND TAX US...BUT HECK THE U.N HAS NOT BEEN EFFECTIVE IN A SINGLE ENDEAVOR IT HAS EVER TRIED. THEY THINK THEY ARE THE POWER SUPREME BUT THEY HAVE THE U.S. AND APPLY THE MUSCEL.
THEY ARE RIDUCULIOUS.

IT IS LIKE AN ANT CRAWLING UP AN ELEPHANTS LEG WITH RAPE ON IT'S MIND.

of course Obama thinks this, he has never read the constitution

reply to post by marg6043

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.

is it so hard to imagine that NSA spying has been used to target high priority members of the government, people like the supreme court justices? i mean, spying on the average citizen has it's benefits, but gathering the dirt on powerful people who disagree is much more useful.

i heard no complaint from obama when the supreme court effectively amended the constitution in regards to obamacare *cough* article 1, section 7 *cough*