Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Agree with your comments and I wasnt sorry to see him go....but I had to give him one accolade and that was the fact he voted against the Patriot Act which may be one of the worst violations of "the interests of the American people" ever hung around our collective necks.
I disagree, the USAPATRIOT Act was, and still is, vital for law enforcement to do their job without being burdened by cumbersome bureaucracy that has absolutely nothing to do with preserving our constitutionally protected rights.
Were you aware that prior to the USAPATRIOT Act if law enforcement wanted to monitor the communications of a suspect they were required to obtain a separate court issued warrant for every communication device used by the suspect? That means, if the suspect used e-mail, faxes, a cell phone, and a land line, law enforcement would have required four separate warrants. Now where under the Fourth Amendment is that a requirement? Under the USAPATRIOT Act law enforcement only requires one court issued warrant to monitor all communications by a suspect, as it should be.
The only problem I could find with the USAPATRIOT had nothing to do with its constitutionality. The section that allows the White House to sell-off at public auction the assets of terrorists and keep the proceeds is problematic at best. Congress should be the sole source of all funding for the federal government. When you give the White House another source of income that is outside the control of Congress, then you have problems like Iran/Contra.
I disagree, the USAPATRIOT Act was, and still is, vital for law enforcement to do their job without being burdened by cumbersome bureaucracy that has absolutely nothing to do with preserving our constitutionally protected rights.
Were you aware that prior to the USAPATRIOT Act if law enforcement wanted to monitor the communications of a suspect they were required to obtain a separate court issued warrant for every communication device used by the suspect? That means, if the suspect used e-mail, faxes, a cell phone, and a land line, law enforcement would have required four separate warrants. Now where under the Fourth Amendment is that a requirement? Under the USAPATRIOT Act law enforcement only requires one court issued warrant to monitor all communications by a suspect, as it should be.
The only problem I could find with the USAPATRIOT had nothing to do with its constitutionality. The section that allows the White House to sell-off at public auction the assets of terrorists and keep the proceeds is problematic at best. Congress should be the sole source of all funding for the federal government. When you give the White House another source of income that is outside the control of Congress, then you have problems like Iran/Contra.
"The Patriot Act allows federal agents, which in many cases, lack jurisdictional authority within the states, to author secret warrants against anyone without a judges authority and without probable cause, for any sort of legal fishing expedition relating to any citizen.
Furthermore according to their interpretation of the Act they call them secret warrants, the release of information relating thereto is deemed a crime.
In explanation if you are served such a warrant and tell your wife or lawyer about it you can be arrested and held indefinitely, without cause and without even telling you why you are being held against your will.
Sort of makes me think of Soviet Russia under Stalin. Such authority does not just undermine our freedoms it negates them. In plain English this act expunges the fourth amendment and is therefore unconstitutional. "
"The Patriot Act allows federal agents, which in many cases, lack jurisdictional authority within the states, to author secret warrants against anyone without a judges authority and without probable cause, for any sort of legal fishing expedition relating to any citizen.
Furthermore according to their interpretation of the Act they call them secret warrants, the release of information relating thereto is deemed a crime.
In explanation if you are served such a warrant and tell your wife or lawyer about it you can be arrested and held indefinitely, without cause and without even telling you why you are being held against your will.
Sort of makes me think of Soviet Russia under Stalin. Such authority does not just undermine our freedoms it negates them. In plain English this act expunges the fourth amendment and is therefore unconstitutional. "
ROFL! Consider the source. If you want any credibility at all, cite the USAPATRIOT Act directly. Not some idiot's interpretation.
There is no provision in the USAPATRIOT Act that does not require a court issued warrant to be issued prior to any search or seizure, as required by the Fourth Amendment. Warrants do not have to be made public, but they do have to be issued by the courts prior to any search or seizure.
Maybe you should read the actual law and interpret it for yourself, instead of reading a web site posted by some nimrod with an agenda.
The fact is Wisconsin’s move toward bankruptcy is fueled by these very same 14 spineless politicians, who’ve awarded their friends lavish pensions and fat six-figure salaries for years.
In return for the largesse, public unions fill the political coffers of these liberal politicians with big campaign contributions. (Your tax dollars at work!)
This is the scandalous taxpayer-funded scheme Scott Walker threatens to break with reform. It’s why the public unions and their liberal allies are in such a tizzy.
I disagree, the USAPATRIOT Act was, and still is, vital for law enforcement to do their job without being burdened by cumbersome bureaucracy that has absolutely nothing to do with preserving our constitutionally protected rights.
Were you aware that prior to the USAPATRIOT Act if law enforcement wanted to monitor the communications of a suspect they were required to obtain a separate court issued warrant for every communication device used by the suspect? That means, if the suspect used e-mail, faxes, a cell phone, and a land line, law enforcement would have required four separate warrants. Now where under the Fourth Amendment is that a requirement? Under the USAPATRIOT Act law enforcement only requires one court issued warrant to monitor all communications by a suspect, as it should be.
The only problem I could find with the USAPATRIOT had nothing to do with its constitutionality. The section that allows the White House to sell-off at public auction the assets of terrorists and keep the proceeds is problematic at best. Congress should be the sole source of all funding for the federal government. When you give the White House another source of income that is outside the control of Congress, then you have problems like Iran/Contra.
But you don't see any mention of your consternation of property auctioned off by the federal government as a result of drugs raids.
we voted russ out because he was a liar and he was a typical politician. more of the same that is in dc these days. that is why he lost, and i was one of the ones that voted against him.
russ said he was a maverick, and he was anything but a maverick. wisconsin needed a maverick to vote against obama and his policies and all russ did was vote democrat.
Last edited by monkeywrenching; 03-07-2011 at 04:25 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
