The FISA Amendments Act Is Clearly Unconstitutional; And Congress Doesn't Care
from the but-but-terrorism dept
We've been discussing the now annual rush to re-approve the FISA Amendments Act, despite the fact that the original bill was on shaky constitutional ground, and it's been made much (much, much) worse due to a secret interpretation of what the law means (a secret interpretation that many in Congress apparently have no interest in finding out about). Andrew Napolitano, a former judge, has penned an interesting column laying out many of the reasons why the whole thing is completely unconstitutional. First, he notes that the establishment of FISA itself is likely a violation of the 4th Amendment:The constitutional standard for all search warrants is probable cause of crime. FISA, however, established a new, different and lesser standard -- thus unconstitutional on its face since Congress is bound by, and cannot change, the Constitution -- of probable cause of status. The status was that of an agent of a foreign power. So, under FISA, the feds needed to demonstrate to a secret court only that a non-American physically present in the U.S., perhaps under the guise of a student, diplomat or embassy janitor, was really an agent of a foreign power, and the demonstration of that agency alone was sufficient to authorize a search warrant to listen to the agent's telephone calls or read his mail.Already troubling enough, but, as Napolitano notes, things weren't just left there. They've continued to stretch and change the conditions, taking it further and further into unconstitutional realms:
Over time, the requirement of status as a foreign agent was modified to status as a foreign person. This, of course, was an even lesser standard and one rarely rejected by the FISA court. In fact, that court has rarely rejected anything, having granted search warrants in well over 97 percent of applications. This is hardly harmless, as foreign persons in the U.S. are frequently talking to Americans in the U.S. Thus, not only did FISA violate the privacy rights of foreigners (the Fourth Amendment protects "people," not just Americans); it violated the rights of those with whom they were communicating, American or non-American.It's just those Patriot Act amendments (the FISA Amendments Act) that is being debated right now. And given some of the questions being asked by politicians who understand the "secret interpretation" of the FISA Amendments Act, it appears that it actually gives law enforcement the ability to go even further. So it's not even just about emailing or calling your cousin in Europe, but as long as law enforcement (a) claims that it's related to a terrorism investigation and (b) they have no specific knowledge at the time of acquisition only that the communication is domestic -- then they can collect just about anything. So, under that interpretation, it appears that the NSA can just collect well, almost anything, by saying that it's all for the sake of a permanent and all encompassing terrorism investigation, and since they're just collecting absolutely everything, they have no specific knowledge at the time of acquisition that the communication is domestic.
It gets worse. The Patriot Act, which was enacted in 2001 and permits federal agents to write their own search warrants in violation of the Fourth Amendment, actually amended FISA so as to do away with the FISA-issued search warrant requirement when the foreign person is outside the U.S. This means that if you email or call your cousin in Europe or a business colleague in Asia, the feds are reading or listening, without a warrant, without suspicion, without records and without evidence of anything unlawful.
Considering that Napolitano's argument starts from the idea that FISA itself is unconstitutional, looking at where we are now from where we started, we're no longer just in "unconstitutional" mode, in which we've tip toed over the boundary. We're now in a full on, 100% "let's mock the Constitution" mode. And, Napolitano, like many others, wonders why almost no one in Congress is willing to point this out:
Moreover, everyone in Congress has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, which could not be more clear: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects..." shall not be violated, except via a warrant issued by a neutral judge upon the judge finding probable cause of crime. If we let Congress, which is a creature of the Constitution, change the Constitution, then no one's liberty or property is safe, and freedom is dependent upon the political needs of those in power.It's no secret that politicians use fear to increase their own power and to cut away at civil liberties. We have plenty of history that demonstrates that. It's just a real shame that so few people seem willing to speak out about this -- or that so few people even seem to care that the government has done this.
The President and the leadership of both political parties in both houses of Congress have abandoned their oaths to uphold the Constitution. They have claimed that foreigners and their American communicants are committed to destroying the country and only the invasion of everyone's right to privacy will keep us safe. They are violating the privacy of us all to find the communications of a few. Who will keep us safe from them?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 4th amendment, congress, constitution, fisa, fisa amendments act, privacy, warrants
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
congress is the opposite of progress
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yet in the 2012 election, 358 incumbents were re-elected to the U.S. House of Representatives —out of 393 incumbents running. That's a 91% reelection rate for incumbents.
Even divided over all 435 contested House seats, the 358 incumbents reelected amount to 82%.
It appears that all the beauty polls showing a 9% or 15% or 16% job approval rating for Congress are absolutely meaningless.
Absolutely meaningless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The problem is the people in these offices have lost all touch with what real people have to deal with. They just know to survive the next election they have to bow to the wants of their party leaders to get the party to support their next election bid.
Holding political office should never be a career plan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hell explain the turd in the punch bowl Lugar getting relected over and over for 30+ years to Senate, yet the guy hadn't lived (just owned a home) in the State for 20+ years, right after they changed the state requirements...
Now he is gone, and we got to pick between Shit sammwich one, and Shit sammwich Two... so which shit do you pick?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hey, leave the "devil-worshipers" out of this...
"money-worshipers" fits so much better, as we all know there is a separation of church and state!
/s
Besides, the very bad visual of seeing all the congress critters dressed (or undressed) for a LaVeyian Black Mass is downright scary and repulsive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Everyone knows you get to pick between a turd sandwich and a giant douche-bag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you don't follow politics, it's okay not to vote. I'd rather have abysmal numbers at the polls, as long as those who DID vote, knew what the heck they were doing.
Pro tip: If you have no other clue who to vote for, choose the candidates you've never heard of. Odds are good it's because they're not as deeply indebted to special interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're a professional? A professional voter? Really?
How interesting. Wow. I've never actually had a chance to chat with a “professional voter”. At least, not anyone who admitted it. Before now.
How did you get started?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'd love to vote for someone new but qualified people do not want the job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There were several, possibly the worst, who did get the boot and this is good. Maybe it was due to the enormous coverage in msm, comedy and general conversation.
Eligible voters need to actually vote and be well informed in their decisions - this is the biggest hurdle.
Many states have stupid voting laws which intensionally impede the voting process, this needs to be fixed. One can not claim (without being laughed at) that this country is a representative form of government when less than half of the eligible voters cast their votes and those elected re-write their platform after taking office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
con - adj. - Of, relating to, or involving a swindle or fraud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
?
Article I, Section 2.
But see Article I, Section 3.
I am not sure it has ever been decided whether a Senator or Representative is a “civil officer[] of the United States” within the meaning of Article II, Section 4. The Senators and Representatives are certainly not “other officers of the United States” within the meaning of Article II, Section 2. In any case, the procedure would seems cumbersome compared with the procedure of Article I. Section 5.
Why impeach and try someone who may —or may not— be a civil officer of the United States, when expulsion is available?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I know of no safe repository of the ultimate power of society but the people. And if we think them not enlightened enough, the remedy is not to take power from them, but to inform them by education.
——Thomas Jefferson, at Monticello, Sept. 28, 1820
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've just read the Wikipedia article on the US Constitution, and the amendments, and correct me please if I'm wrong, but it does say Congress can change the Constitution; it needs to propose it and have the various states ratify it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
mainly I'm asking because to Change the Australian Constitution there has to be a Referendum held which is mandatory for all voting able citizens to vote on - criminally punishable if you do not vote (and the answers are YES or NO on ONE question only) and then for the referendum to pass each state must have an absolute majority of votes in each state. ie: less than 51% in any state means it does not pass and the constitution is not changed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So no, the US doesn't use popular vote to determine Constitutional Amendments, primarily because it was/is intended to be a representative government of representative governments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
First the amendment is proposed. This is done in one of two ways. Congress can approve the amendment with a 2/3 supermajority vote in both houses, or 2/3rd of the state legislatures can request it.
Then to be ratified, 3/4 of the state legislatures have to approve it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You omitted the possibility of ratification “by conventions in three fourths thereof” “as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress”.
In United States v Sprague (1931), the court read the Constitution to say:
That does not answer the questions that might attend the procedures of ratification conventions in the several states. May the Congress, in proposing ratification by conventions, also make rules governing their composition and for ordering the conventions' proceedings?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Article V (annotated):
The Congress,
which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified
as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
WoW!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't think he's talking about elections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you look at what the constitution says, most of the actions of government are against what it allows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You don't need to be an anarchist to see through the lies and evil of government or break free from the illusions the constitution-worshippers hold...but it helps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well Mike only has so much time to write about these things. ;-) Seriously though, if the government followed the Constitution it would look very, very, different. Just obeying the interstate commerce clause alone would be a massive shakeup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Our Wonderful Gummint
Let's step back a bit and look at a few things.
Federal Oath Of Office -
"The current oath was enacted in 1884:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
Each and every one of our esteemed congresscritters, and the members of the Executive branch, are blatantly violating their oaths of office. In most cases, they are also violating the duties of their offices. They are sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution. Instead, they are attacking it at every turn.
They are sworn to "well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter". Instead, they ignore or directly violate those duties with impunity. They seem to regard Federal service as license to print money, curry favor with the rich and powerful, and directly ignore the reason they were elected or appointed.
Somebody needs to grab them by the scruff of the neck and shake them up a little. Some prison time wouldn't hurt.
I don't know, yet, what to do about it. They're pretty deeply entrenched. But there must be an answer somewhere.
====
Follow the money. Self-interest rules this earth despite all differing claims.
====
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Nation Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 also violates American citizen's 5th and 14th Constitutional rights, because it grants the Government the authority to detain US Citizens indefinitely, without so much as a trial. The US Government is currently violating at least 3 Constitutional Rights. The 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments, maybe even more. So that's at least 3, count'em 3, Constitutional Rights that the US Government is currently in violation of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cover-up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]