National Security Letters Ruled Unconstitutional, Banned 231
A U.S. District Court Judge in California today ruled that so-called National Security Letters, used by government agencies to force business and organizations to turn over information on citizens, are unconstitutional. Judge Susan Illston ordered the government to stop using them, but gave the government a 90-day window to appeal the decision, during which the NSLs may still be sent out. The letters were challenged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation on behalf of a telecom who was ordered to provide data. "The telecom took the extraordinary and rare step of challenging the underlying authority of the National Security Letter, as well as the legitimacy of the gag order that came with it. Both challenges are allowed under a federal law that governs NSLs, a power greatly expanded under the Patriot Act that allows the government to get detailed information on Americans’ finances and communications without oversight from a judge. The FBI has issued hundreds of thousands of NSLs and been reprimanded for abusing them — though almost none of the requests have been challenged by the recipients. After the telecom challenged the NSL, the Justice Department took its own extraordinary measure and sued the company, arguing in court documents that the company was violating the law by challenging its authority. The move stunned the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is representing the anonymous telecom. ... After heated negotiations with EFF, the Justice Department agreed to stay the civil suit and let the telecom’s challenge play out in court. The Justice Department subsequently filed a motion to compel in the challenge case, but has never dropped the civil suit."
Supreme court (Score:4, Interesting)
There should be a mechanism for cases like this to leapfrog to the SC. Nothing will be decided 'till it gets there. (I should live so long...)
what can Joe Citizen do? (Score:5, Interesting)
to support this and help it get driven all the way to the top SCOTUS?) so it gets set in concrete?
Re:Patriot Act is unconstitutional (Score:5, Interesting)
Damn, someone even more cynical than me. Gods I hope you're wrong.
Justice Department is just like an HR department (Score:5, Interesting)
Many people think that a corporation's Human Resources department is there for the protection of the employees. In reality, the opposite is the case - to protect the management from the employees. The same is true for the Justice Department. It doesn't exist to protect the people, but rather to protect the administration and control the population. Sure every once in a while they manage to do the right thing to satisfy the people. My HR department organizes an annual summer picnic.
Re:what can Joe Citizen do? (Score:4, Interesting)
The main thing you can do, is when people ask you to vote for the constitutional amendment which legalizes NSLs, say you're going to vote against it and why, and then when election day comes, follow through on the promise.
"Secret Government" is a huge threat to us all (Score:5, Interesting)
Even as I was a TSA screener for a while, the whole "papers please!" measures that have been coming down have simply reminded me of "Nazi Germany" from old movies and the like. At some level I found it amusing if only because people were so easily pushed into accepting this. Nobody questioned things enough. Nobody asked "why is the security threat condition never 'GREEN'?" Of course I was also disgusted by it. That we were told to explain to people about rules which were 'secret' and couldn't be shown to them made me feel like a real shit. I was glad to finally get another job when I could.
A government which cannot be trusted has already betrayed the people and it needs to be corrected. "It was my job" was an excuse I used too... though, the things I let slip by me... well... :) I can't say that I let them slip by intentionally, but in one attempt, I was foiled by a co-worker who ratted out a one-legged man who had marijuana in his pocket. I *so* wanted to let that go...
Re:Patriot Act is unconstitutional (Score:5, Interesting)
Hey, a new addition to the doublespeak dictionary: Cynicism is Naivete.
You may well be right, and that would be a deeply worrying trend since unlike most flavors of naivete which lead people to overreach their abilities (and sometimes succeed), cynicism leads people to attempt nothing at all, and thus certainly fail.
Thank you for a potentially productive perspective, I'll have to try it on the universe for a while see if it fits.
Re:The Justice Department (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Patriot Act is unconstitutional (Score:4, Interesting)
Sadly, it'll just move the corruption to a manufactured pretext mode: "I saw him swerve", etc. It'll no more stop this than NY cops pulling over black people preferentially has stopped despite loads of negative publicity, etc. It'll no more stop than the USG will let Cat Stevens back into the country. The whole damned shooting match is corrupt. I suspect it will serve as a lesson for Governor Brewer to treat Obama with more respect. But yeah, the decision went the right way. So did Heller -- but for many of the wrong reasons, and under an opinion that was batshit crazy. It can happen.
This was such an edge case that it will have almost no impact on anyone, anywhere. Which in my admittedly cynical view, probably serves to explain how it went this way.
Yeah, that's a win, no doubt. If you count having to chase totally obvious government malfeasance all the way to SCOTUS a win, sigh. I know I couldn't afford to do it. But -- hopefully -- it'll make future cases expire on contact. Assuming there aren't other circumstances, like, the federal government actually caring about the case and claiming no one can see the reasons because they're state secrets [wikipedia.org] and other such highly fragrant fertilizer.
Well, here's to you and your optimism. I'd buy you a beer if I could. I'd just as soon be completely, utterly wrong.
Re:Patriot Act is unconstitutional (Score:5, Interesting)
"But the US Supreme Court, in their infinite wisdom, came to the brilliant conclusion that they were supreme."
And therein lies the problem. At least if you listen to the Federal Government, rather than reading history.
When debating about whether to ratify the Constitution, the States were repeatedly guaranteed that the Supreme Court would be the ultimate arbiter ONLY when it came to matters of the powers enumerated in the Constitution. On questions of WHETHER the Federal government was exceeding its Constitutional powers, the Supreme Court was not to be relied on. Because -- of course -- the Supreme Court is part of that same government. And it was never intended that the Federal government should have the authority to decide what its own powers are. If it were, there would have been no need for a Constitution in the first place.
Following is an excerpt from James Madison's "Report of 1800" before the Virginia legislature. Modern English translation below.
"However true therefore it may be that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial as well as the other departments hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve."
In other words, the Supreme Court is normally "supreme" in matters of normal Federal law, but NOT "in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact" (the States). His reasoning for this is perfectly solid: since via the Constitution, the States were creating the Federal government, and ceding some of their powers to it, the Federal government cannot be more powerful than the States themselves, except in those areas explicitly set out by the states in that same Constitution. The Supreme Court cannot lord it over the States because the States created it and gave it power in the first place, which is a logical contradiction. ("On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it;")
And where the question of whether the Federal government has exceeded its authority arises, the Supreme Court is no more immune to power-grabbing than the other branches of the Federal government. ("... the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.")
Therefore, when the Federal government is deemed by the States to have exceeded its rightful powers as enumerated in the Constitution, it is "the right and the duty" (as he and Jefferson wrote elsewhere) for those States to resist the Federal government, and declare that "law" null and void.
That is exactly what you are seeing today, with a great many states voting to "nullify" Obamacare, certain gun and marijuana restrictions, and other Federal "laws" that they feel are unconstitutional.