Obama administration says NSA phone snooping is Not Unconstitutional & House to vote on NSA

reply to post by tnhiker
do you not mean the royal birth? and as fact it is the Senate that has their panty's in a bunch over the people wanting to put a stop to be spied on www.abovetopsecret.com... for they have to most to lose if the NSA program is shut down, not for security but for investment and riches to be made in MIC .

Now that the cold war is over , whom else can the the enemy be? The whole world and the people, and MIC is the driving force, and in the Name of National Security. It is as if they are trying to push the people to a civil war to drive the MIC investments up, DARPA and others might have a whole new bread of weapons to us on us, think about that before you say lets show them an other 1776.

The best we can do is vote all them A holes out this time around this is our only chance any one in there, House, Senate Fed or state, for more than one term out you go, if your rep is on a MIC military Industrial complex comity out they go, I do know your not here in the god old US of A but to them like me that are, this time take heed vote if you want true freedom, if you fail then you tried if you sat back and did nothing to bring about your Bill Of Rights to protect the Constitution form with in , then shut up and take it like a man.!!!!

We yes we the people let the NSA and other programs come to be by letting NDAA, The "P"act the TSA, DHS, become part of our lives, not that we had a choice be we re-voted them back in office that was for it and voted down the ones that could have put a stop to it. Think real hard the next you vote do you want freedom of to be treated as a threat, your phone email text mail and any other form of communication snooped on in by NSA or the Gov.

reply to post by elysiumfire


Thank you for that.
The quote above by our esteemed British member is a master peice, and should be reposted across the net.

It also gives me the opportunity to address one of the more slippery and elusive elements of this whole debacle.

without collecting the contents of plaintiffs’ communications, implicates no ‘legitimate expectation of privacy’ that is protected by the Constitution,”

That wonderfully elusive phrase 'legitimate expectation of privacy' and the two poison dripping fangs buried within it.

See, in America we have this service available in some cars called OnStar. It can detect, if your car is in a crash, call for help, unlock your doors from space, all kind of neat stuff. And people love it.

They love their OnStar. Know why?

Because the powers of surveillance in intel gather are being used to SERVE US, they are not being used against us.

Now look at the quote again and see if the two poison fangs are visible now.

without collecting the contents of plaintiffs’ communications, implicates no ‘legitimate expectation of privacy’ that is protected by the Constitution,”

That would be true, and constitutional, if the data was being used FOR US, but we never get access to the records to find out who's cell phone was texting from inside our house the night it was robbed, or who gps placed them as a witness to the crime committed against us. Oh no, all the meta-data is used only by some elusive powerful interest. Never on behalf of the customer who's communication data was collected.

And to make us swallow secret courts on top of their smoke and mirrors is just puke worthy.


Mike

I'd like a list of people in the House, Senate, all of Congress who are for and against stopping this illegal spying.

We need to plaster this list all over the internet and make people see it's not worth allowing these people to continue in their posts.

Isn't this information posted publicly someplace on the net? If they have taken the vote already ( It's Wednesday ) or when they do - Can someone help me find this info please?

Yeah.. I'm gonna start a war LOL.

Interesting but just because the administration says one thing, it doesn't mean that the courts are going to agree. I see a lot of similarity of issues in the collection of metadata as there were in the library records issues that have existed from time to time (Patriot Act also rekindled that one). Many of the arguments that have been used in the library records surveillance can actually be easily applied to this metadata collection, especially the "Chilling Effect" doctrine that has been what has been used by the SC previously in making a determination on the constitutionality of surveillance.

Interesting read on the subject matter and history of library records surveillance: www.wcl.american.edu...

Chilling Effect Doctrine: www.law.ucla.edu...

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


Obama, you don't get to decide if it's unconstitutional for one. Secondly, we can surmise at this point that probably 2 or 3 of the SC justices have been compromised, and several of the others were appointed as political pieces instead of holders of the constitution. This unfortunately means that the scotus only sometimes adheres to the constitution.

There is one piece of legislation that decides whether something is constitutional, it is the constitution with ratified amendments. That's it. The president doesn't get any say in such things. *long string of cursing*

They are debating this now in the house live on CSPAN

Well, they put it to a voice vote and the amendment was defeated.

Mike.Ockizard:

Well, they put it to a voice vote and the amendment was defeated.

Could there be any better evidence that a political coup is unravelling in the USA? I don't doubt that there are representatives whom want this, but those that do not and yet voted for its continued implementation are probably compromised by damaging data upon them, and voted for it under a duress and against their principles, but better this than to have damaging information about them made public. They wouldn't have needed to blackmail all those they can blackmail, just enough to provide a winning majority, and leaving the others to vote against it in a minority group. It gives the sense and illusion of democracy at work.

Obviously, however the American people think about the surveillance, your representatives and the government itself, do not care. it's happening whether you like it or not. You are to do as they tell you, and not as they do.

This is terrible. What's the point if your voice isn't heard and the government goes ahead and does what it wants? I can see the usefulness but enact it in a way that doesn't breach our constitutional rights, simple?

It's what they are using that information for that troubles me. I have a sneaking suspicion that the US Gov is hovering all this information up then selling it on the side. Mostly to corporations.

Originally posted by Mike.Ockizard
Well, they put it to a voice vote and the amendment was defeated.

Thanks Mike.

Do you know.. is there a transcript someplace we can use to see who voted for nay or yay?

I missed the show .. was working.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

The Obama administration for the first time responded to a Spygate lawsuit, telling a federal judge the wholesale vacuuming up of all phone-call metadata in the United States is in the “public interest,” does not breach the constitutional rights of Americans and cannot be challenged in a court of law.

www.wired.com...

See that? --> [ cannot be challenged in a court of law ]

I don't know why responsible media would even bother to reprint what this extremist says. Let's face it .... we have a mass murdering nutjob with serious documentation problems telling us that illegal spying activities from some three-letter-outfit is perfectly ok.

One hand washes the other.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


After the verbal vote Amash requested a recording of the votes. The results can be found HERE

For those who don't know who their reps are look HERE And give them a piece of your mind. I did...

What was striking to me was that if it was defeated by only 12 votes, how could the verbal vote have been perceived one way or another? Listening to it on CSPAN I couldn't tell.. I guess that's why he requested a tally.

It was somewhat heartening to see the vote was that close. This isn't over.

reply to post by elysiumfire


12 vote margin with 12 not voting. Surprisingly close. The 12 that did not vote could have been the deciding factor. They should be fired.

Barletta - Republican PA
Beatty - Democrat OH
Bustos - Democrat IL
Campbell - Republican CA
Coble - Republican NC
Herrera Beutler - Republican WA
Horsford - Democrat NV
McCarthy - Democrat NY
Negrete McLeod - Democrat CA
Pallone - Democrat NJ
Rokita - Republican IN
Schock - Republican IL

It would be interesting to see this list including how much each received in political donations from the likes of BAE, MITRE, Boeing, Raytheon etc. How much you wanna bet that more of that money went to the "No" voters?

Is anyone here able to gather that info? Not sure where to start myself but that would make a GREAT post!!!

THE NO VOTES…

Aderholt
Alexander
Andrews
Bachmann
Barber
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Benishek
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boehner
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bucshon
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Delaney
Denham
Dent
Diaz-Balart
Duckworth
Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Esty
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallego
Garcia
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutiérrez
Hanabusa Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holding
Hoyer
Hudson
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Joyce
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Latta
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Pompeo
Price (NC)
Quigley
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rigell
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Schakowsky
Schneider
Schwartz
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Titus
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Wasserman Schultz
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

The only way anything will change, is if every last person involved with the federal government regarding elected officials and their personal are removed all at once. I mean in every branch. Any other way is pointless. This is why I have said that voting no longer works.

reply to post by Mike.Ockizard


Ask and ye shall receive....I love following the money. Open Secrets actually tracks political contributions so it just takes looking for the rep. For instance, here's Rep. Robert B. Aderholt:

www.opensecrets.org...

Didn't get a lot from any single contributor through direct contribution but did spot General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman the list, both of which are serious defense contractors. Their links, respectively, which indicates total political contributions and lobbying expenditures:
www.opensecrets.org...
www.opensecrets.org...

I'll see what I can come up with. So far though, Northrup Grumman is the one contractor that is coming up a lot but not all the time. Though, theoretically, going through the ayes would probably be the responsible thing to do if just as many ayes received money as noes but going to see what pops in the noes first. A tally for each would be interesting, too.

Originally posted by darkstar111
The only way anything will change, is if every last person involved with the federal government regarding elected officials and their personal are removed all at once. I mean in every branch. Any other way is pointless. This is why I have said that voting no longer works.

With a 12 vote margin I tend to be more hopeful than you. And this is only the first battle over the NSA. I will say it's still a long shot but I hear grumbling more in the mainstream over this. As folks become more aware we could see baby steps at least. Call your representatives and let them know how you feel.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Thats a start. I imagine they funnel money through other channels once they hit the limit they are allowed to contribute. Still, how many hit the limit of regular contributions? That could tell us something.

I'm at the E's right now and so far, only 8 out of 50 did not have any political campaign contributions from a defense contractor. Northrup Grumman is the biggest so far with 27 campaign donations out of 50. Stopping for the night but I did notice something kind of interesting. Kept seeing Appropriations committee members on the list that were getting larger sums than others. Interestingly enough, the defense and homeland security subcommittees had some of the highest amounts of campaign donations and nearly all of them voted no. However, a few representatives within those subcommittees voted aye and I think they deserve some positive mention:

Ayes from the Defense subcommittee (out of 15 members):
Jack Kingston (and he received some of the highest campaign donations so far to boot--go figure)
Betty McCollum
Jim Moran (also a big recipient of defense industry campaign donations)

Ayes from the Homeland Security subcommittee (out of 11 members):
Chuck Fleischmann
Lucille Roybal-Allard

Originally posted by Mike.Ockizard
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

Thats a start. I imagine they funnel money through other channels once they hit the limit they are allowed to contribute. Still, how many hit the limit of regular contributions? That could tell us something.

I believe that the rules as per campaign donation have changed so that it is unlimited. They could've certainly funneled some through different groups for sure. However, you're not going to see major donations towards representatives because they are in office for 2 years and then, the election process goes again. So, the majority of the amounts donated are about 1000-2000 range per contractor. Doesn't seem like a whole lot but most reps seem to raise just a little over $100k per campaign cycle. The numbers start getting bigger for those in positions of power within the House but not by much. Largest I've seen from these contractors has been Kingston (he voted aye). There's over 400 representatives in the house. If they were plunking down about $10k per rep, that'd be over 4 million right there. What they do instead is make those big donations to the political parties as a whole and presidential candidates.