Monthly Archives: May 2014

The Shaky Legal Foundation of NSA Surveillance on Americans

Posted: May 2, 2014 at 4:47 am

What the final clause of the Fourth Amendment means in interpreting the government's rights

An NSA facility in Utah (Reuters)

A secret opinion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court recently released to the public is a reminder that the NSA is still conducting mass surveillance on millions of Americans, even if that fact has faded from the headlines. This would seem to violate the Fourth Amendment if you read its plain text. So how is it that FISA-court judges keep signing off on these sweeping orders?

They base their rulings on Smith v. Maryland, a case the Supreme Court decided decades ago. Before we examine the glaring flaw in the jurisprudence of the FISA-court judges applying it to mass surveillance, here's a brief refresher on that case.

Smith began with a 1976 house robbery. After the break-in, the victim started getting obscene phone calls from a man identifying himself as the robber.

On one occasion, the caller asked that she step out on her front porch; she did so, and saw the 1975 Monte Carlo she had earlier described to police moving slowly past her home. On March 16, police spotted a man who met McDonoughs description driving a 1975 Monte Carlo in her neighborhood. By tracing the license plate number, police learned that the car was registered in the name of petitioner, Michael Lee Smith. The next day, the telephone company, at police request, installed a pen register at its central offices to record the numbers dialed from the telephone at petitioners home. The police did not get a warrant or court order before having the pen register installed. The register revealed that on March 17 a call was placed from petitioners home to McDonoughs phone. On the basis of this and other evidence, the police obtained a warrant to search petitioners residence.

The Supreme Court ruled that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy for numbers dialed from his house because a third party, the telephone company, kept a record of all calls dialed, as is commonly understood by phone users. The NSA argues that, per this precedent, they can obtain the call records of every American, even if the vast majority of us are suspected of no wrongdoing.

Georgetown Professor Randy Barnett explains why judges relying on Smith to legitimize mass surveillance are actually going far beyond the precedent that the Supreme Court established. A key difference between what the Court allowed in Smith and what the NSA is doing: Particularity.

Recall the text of the Fourth Amendment, and especially the part that I've rendered in bold:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Continued here:

The Shaky Legal Foundation of NSA Surveillance on Americans

Posted in Fourth Amendment | Comments Off on The Shaky Legal Foundation of NSA Surveillance on Americans

Bill Maher: Second Amendment and Militia”s – Video

Posted: at 4:47 am


Bill Maher: Second Amendment and Militia #39; #39;s

By: Rihanna New s

Originally posted here:

Bill Maher: Second Amendment and Militia''s - Video

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Bill Maher: Second Amendment and Militia”s – Video

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution – Video

Posted: at 4:47 am


Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
This is a synthesized speech reading of the Wikipedia article "Second Amendment to the United States Constitution" and is intended primarily for blind and vi...

By: Frank Eckstein

Read the original post:

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Video

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Second Amendment to the United States Constitution – Video

Second Amendment Rally – Video

Posted: at 4:47 am


Second Amendment Rally
Second Amendment rally in Pennsylvania... we must defend our Constitutional rights! And be sure to catch my latest podcast: http://the405media.com/2014/04/28/power-through-influence/

By: FriddleThe

See the original post here:

Second Amendment Rally - Video

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Second Amendment Rally – Video

Gun rights: Times have changed since the creation of the Second Amendment

Posted: at 4:47 am

My thanks to Times columnist Jerry Large for his common sense call for repeal of the Second Amendment [Common sense calls for repeal of Second Amendment, Local News, May 1]. It begins with A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state These phrases have been thought to be only introductory and therefore not having the force of law.

That thought apparently does not consider late-18th century U.S. military history. The standing army, then called the Continental Army, was very small and incapable of significant warfare. To be effective, it was augmented by state and local militias, including some organized and funded by prominent individuals.

Most militia enlistees came from rural areas and owned rifles or other weapons with which to obtain food and protect livestock from predators. Many enlistments provided for them to arm themselves with those weapons a provision that added significantly to the armaments of the militias and was the main purpose for the Second Amendment, which established the peoples right to keep and bear arms.

Now we have a large, powerful standing army supported by a large, well-armed national guard. Militias, with their short-term enlistments and rifles brought from home, exist only in memory negating the need the Second Amendment.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Congress has been bought and paid for by the National Rifle Association.

Harry Petersen, Bellevue

Original post:

Gun rights: Times have changed since the creation of the Second Amendment

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Gun rights: Times have changed since the creation of the Second Amendment

John Dukes on First Amendment – Video

Posted: at 4:47 am


John Dukes on First Amendment
Wake up Sutter County! This is a man who has at least twice taken the following solemn oath: I, John Dukes, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support...

By: Dragon Flier

More:

John Dukes on First Amendment - Video

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on John Dukes on First Amendment – Video

California Mayors Stand Behind Anti First Amendment Freedom of Speech Approval – Video

Posted: at 4:47 am


California Mayors Stand Behind Anti First Amendment Freedom of Speech Approval
B.W.N https://www.youtube.com/user/BreakingWorldNewsful The mayors of Los Angeles and Sacramento, California react to the NBA #39;s lifetime ban imposed on LA ...

By: M10750calSASR

Original post:

California Mayors Stand Behind Anti First Amendment Freedom of Speech Approval - Video

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on California Mayors Stand Behind Anti First Amendment Freedom of Speech Approval – Video

Was Donald Sterling’s First Amendment Right to Free Speech Violated? – Video

Posted: at 4:47 am


Was Donald Sterling #39;s First Amendment Right to Free Speech Violated?
Basically giving a rundown of how Donald Sterling #39;s first amendment rights to free speech were NOT violated. Cleared up a lot of confusion for me, and hopefu...

By: DRock1042

Read more from the original source:

Was Donald Sterling's First Amendment Right to Free Speech Violated? - Video

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on Was Donald Sterling’s First Amendment Right to Free Speech Violated? – Video

Bar Owner Prevails in Buck Foston First Amendment Trial

Posted: at 4:46 am

A tavern owner has won a First Amendment battle against a New Jersey city over his right to open a bar called Buck Foston.

A federal jury this week found that the city of New Brunswick violated the constitutional rights of Larry Blatterfein by denying him a liquor license. In siding with the 61-year-old businessman, the jury concluded that the city held up the bar in red tape because it objected to its name, an off-color pun evoking the legendary rivalry between the Yankees and the Red Sox.

The dispute began five years ago when Mr. Blatterfein, an International Business Machines Corp. systems engineer-turned tavern owner, drew up plans to develop a sports bar complex in New Brunswick, about 25 miles southwest of New York City. He figured patrons in a city filled with Yankees fans would get a kick out of the name Buck Foston, a type of play on words known as a spoonerism.

But his plans were dealt a blushing crow, er, a crushing blow when the city refused to process his application to transfer a liquor license.

Frustrated by the delay, Mr. Blatterfein in 2011 filed suit in federal court in New Jersey, alleging the city intentionally derailed the project because New Brunswicks mayor, James Cahill, thought the name was vulgar. The citys resistance, Mr. Blatterfein alleged, violated his First Amendment rights.

A spokesman for the mayor said at the time the suit was filed the mayor was opposed to the name but that the license was held up because Mr. Blatterfein hadnt submitted all the necessary paperwork, according to the New Jersey Star-Ledger.

The case went to trial after a federal judge in September refused to dismiss it. After deliberating for two days, the seven-person jury on Wednesday returned a 6-1 verdict in Mr. Blatterfeins favor and awarded him $1.5 million.

A lawyer for the city didnt immediately respond to a request for comment. Mr.Cahill told the Star-Ledger he was disappointed with the verdict but, while it would have been better to win, the verdict was not for the amount Mr. Blatterfein was seeking.

An attorney for Mr. Blatterfein, who was represented by Joshpe Law Group LLP,said the two sides entered into a settlement agreement after the verdict was announced but declined to discuss the details.

Mr. Blatterfein has since decamped to Tampa, Fla., where hes about to open a new bar. In an interview with Law Blog, he says he probably wont revive the Buck Foston project, but still savors his victory. The First Amendment is sacrosanct in our country as it should be, he said.

Read more:

Bar Owner Prevails in Buck Foston First Amendment Trial

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on Bar Owner Prevails in Buck Foston First Amendment Trial

First Amendment common sense

Posted: at 4:46 am

POSTED: Thursday, May 1, 2014 - 6:54pm

UPDATED: Thursday, May 1, 2014 - 8:33pm

Tyler (KETK) I always like to hear from the audience and a few of you have weighed in about the crazyNBA owner in LA.

You ask me about his First Amendment rights. Well, yes, he has them. So do you. So do I

That's what I am doing right now. I can speak against the powers that be it state, local or federal government.

In fact, an attorney friend of mine said it best on his Facebook page:"Don't we have freedom of speech?" they asked him. My friend replies by saying, "Please allow me to point out that the First Amendment protects us against attacks by the government on freedom of speech. The First Amendment does not apply to the NBA or other private businesses. "

You can get on the federal government all day long, but what you say here in East Texas may hurt you.

Case in point, I could get mad about somebody or something and trash them right here. You could do it at the grocery store or down at the VFW hall, but what you say can be held against you.

If you run a business, people may never buy from you again because they think you're a nut. You have the right to take on your employer.

They have the right to have the last say and that may not pay very well. I'll wrap up with that old Johnny Paycheck song.

More here:

First Amendment common sense

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on First Amendment common sense