Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy

[jim]

Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy

WASHINGTON (AP) -- As Congress debates new rules for government
eavesdropping, a top intelligence official says it is time that people in
the United States changed their definition of privacy.

Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal
deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that
government and businesses properly safeguard people's private communications
and financial information.

Kerr's comments come as Congress is taking a second look at the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Lawmakers hastily changed the 1978 law last summer to allow the
government to eavesdrop inside the United States without court permission,
so long as one end of the conversation was reasonably believed to be located
outside the U.S.

The original law required a court order for any surveillance conducted
on U.S. soil, to protect Americans' privacy. The White House argued that the
law was obstructing intelligence gathering because, as technology has
changed, a growing amount of foreign communications passes through
U.S.-based channels.

The most contentious issue in the new legislation is whether to shield
telecommunications companies from civil lawsuits for allegedly giving the
government access to people's private e-mails and phone calls without a FISA
court order between 2001 and 2007.

Some lawmakers, including members of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
appear reluctant to grant immunity. Suits might be the only way to determine
how far the government has burrowed into people's privacy without court
permission.

The committee is expected to decide this week whether its version of
the bill will protect telecommunications companies. About 40 wiretapping
suits are pending.

The central witness in a California lawsuit against AT&T says the
government is vacuuming up billions of e-mails and phone calls as they pass
through an AT&T switching station in San Francisco.

Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, helped connect a device in 2003
that he says diverted and copied onto a government supercomputer every call,
e-mail, and Internet site access on AT&T lines.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed the class-action suit,
claims there are as many as 20 such sites in the U.S.

The White House has promised to veto any bill that does not grant
immunity from suits such as this one.

Congressional leaders hope to finish the bill by Thanksgiving. It
would replace the FISA update enacted in August that privacy groups and
civil libertarians say allows the government to read Americans' e-mails and
listen to their phone calls without court oversight.

Kerr said at an October intelligence conference in San Antonio that he
finds concerns that the government may be listening in odd when people are
"perfectly willing for a green-card holder at an (Internet service provider)
who may or may have not have been an illegal entrant to the United States to
handle their data."

He noted that government employees face up to five years in prison and
$100,000 in fines if convicted of misusing private information.

Millions of people in this country - particularly young people -
already have surrendered anonymity to social networking sites such as
MySpace and Facebook, and to Internet commerce. These sites reveal to the
public, government and corporations what was once closely guarded
information, like personal statistics and credit card numbers.

"Those two generations younger than we are have a very different idea
of what is essential privacy, what they would wish to protect about their
lives and affairs. And so, it's not for us to inflict one size fits all,"
said Kerr, 68. "Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone
that's typed in their name on Google understands that."

"Our job now is to engage in a productive debate, which focuses on
privacy as a component of appropriate levels of security and public safety,"
Kerr said. "I think all of us have to really take stock of what we already
are willing to give up, in terms of anonymity, but (also) what safeguards we
want in place to be sure that giving that doesn't empty our bank account or
do something equally bad elsewhere."

Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff lawyer with the Electronic Frontier
Foundation, an advocacy group that defends online free speech, privacy and
intellectual property rights, said Kerr's argument ignores both privacy laws
and American history.

"Anonymity has been important since the Federalist Papers were written
under pseudonyms," Opsahl said. "The government has tremendous power: the
police power, the ability to arrest, to detain, to take away rights. Tying
together that someone has spoken out on an issue with their identity is a
far more dangerous thing if it is the government that is trying to tie it
together."

Opsahl also said Kerr ignores the distinction between sacrificing
protection from an intrusive government and voluntarily disclosing
information in exchange for a service.

"There is something fundamentally different from the government having
information about you than private parties," he said. "We shouldn't have to
give people the choice between taking advantage of modern communication
tools and sacrificing their privacy."

"It's just another 'trust us, we're the government,'" he said.


(Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

http://www.11alive.com/news/article_news.aspx?storyid=106257

 

[HEMI-Powered]

jim added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

> Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy
>
> WASHINGTON (AP) -- As Congress debates new rules for
> government
> eavesdropping, a top intelligence official says it is time
> that people in the United States changed their definition of
> privacy.
>
> Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr,
> the principal
> deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should
> mean that government and businesses properly safeguard
> people's private communications and financial information.
>
> Kerr's comments come as Congress is taking a second look
> at the
> Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
>
> Lawmakers hastily changed the 1978 law last summer to
> allow the
> government to eavesdrop inside the United States without court
> permission, so long as one end of the conversation was
> reasonably believed to be located outside the U.S.
>
> The original law required a court order for any
> surveillance conducted
> on U.S. soil, to protect Americans' privacy. The White House
> argued that the law was obstructing intelligence gathering
> because, as technology has changed, a growing amount of
> foreign communications passes through U.S.-based channels.
>
> The most contentious issue in the new legislation is
> whether to shield
> telecommunications companies from civil lawsuits for allegedly
> giving the government access to people's private e-mails and
> phone calls without a FISA court order between 2001 and 2007.
>
> Some lawmakers, including members of the Senate
> Judiciary Committee,
> appear reluctant to grant immunity. Suits might be the only
> way to determine how far the government has burrowed into
> people's privacy without court permission.
>
> The committee is expected to decide this week whether
> its version of
> the bill will protect telecommunications companies. About 40
> wiretapping suits are pending.
>
> The central witness in a California lawsuit against AT&T
> says the
> government is vacuuming up billions of e-mails and phone calls
> as they pass through an AT&T switching station in San
> Francisco.
>
> Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, helped connect a
> device in 2003
> that he says diverted and copied onto a government
> supercomputer every call, e-mail, and Internet site access on
> AT&T lines.
>
> The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed the
> class-action suit,
> claims there are as many as 20 such sites in the U.S.
>
> The White House has promised to veto any bill that does
> not grant
> immunity from suits such as this one.
>
> Congressional leaders hope to finish the bill by
> Thanksgiving. It
> would replace the FISA update enacted in August that privacy
> groups and civil libertarians say allows the government to
> read Americans' e-mails and listen to their phone calls
> without court oversight.
>
> Kerr said at an October intelligence conference in San
> Antonio that he
> finds concerns that the government may be listening in odd
> when people are "perfectly willing for a green-card holder at
> an (Internet service provider) who may or may have not have
> been an illegal entrant to the United States to handle their
> data."
>
> He noted that government employees face up to five years
> in prison and
> $100,000 in fines if convicted of misusing private
> information.
>
> Millions of people in this country - particularly young
> people -
> already have surrendered anonymity to social networking sites
> such as MySpace and Facebook, and to Internet commerce. These
> sites reveal to the public, government and corporations what
> was once closely guarded information, like personal statistics
> and credit card numbers.
>
> "Those two generations younger than we are have a very
> different idea
> of what is essential privacy, what they would wish to protect
> about their lives and affairs. And so, it's not for us to
> inflict one size fits all," said Kerr, 68. "Protecting
> anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone that's typed
> in their name on Google understands that."
>
> "Our job now is to engage in a productive debate, which
> focuses on
> privacy as a component of appropriate levels of security and
> public safety," Kerr said. "I think all of us have to really
> take stock of what we already are willing to give up, in terms
> of anonymity, but (also) what safeguards we want in place to
> be sure that giving that doesn't empty our bank account or do
> something equally bad elsewhere."
>
> Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff lawyer with the Electronic
> Frontier
> Foundation, an advocacy group that defends online free speech,
> privacy and intellectual property rights, said Kerr's argument
> ignores both privacy laws and American history.
>
> "Anonymity has been important since the Federalist
> Papers were written
> under pseudonyms," Opsahl said. "The government has tremendous
> power: the police power, the ability to arrest, to detain, to
> take away rights. Tying together that someone has spoken out
> on an issue with their identity is a far more dangerous thing
> if it is the government that is trying to tie it together."
>
> Opsahl also said Kerr ignores the distinction between
> sacrificing
> protection from an intrusive government and voluntarily
> disclosing information in exchange for a service.
>
> "There is something fundamentally different from the
> government having
> information about you than private parties," he said. "We
> shouldn't have to give people the choice between taking
> advantage of modern communication tools and sacrificing their
> privacy."
>
> "It's just another 'trust us, we're the government,'" he
> said.
>
>
> (Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights
> Reserved.)
>
> http://www.11alive.com/news/article_news.aspx?storyid=106
> 257

Seems like we really do need some sort of change in the White House
in 2008. it'd be nice if we could get it earlier, but we cannot.
I'm not an attorney thus hardly a Constitutional law expert, but my
simple engineer's mind in reading the Bill of Rights and the "due
process of law" clause of the 14th amendment strongly suggests that
the post-9/11 Big Brother changes brought about by FISA being
emasculated and this thing people think is the Patriot Act has
pretty much destroyed the Bill of Rights. Now, besides what this
Intel guy says that I think is, as the Brits would say, Spot On,
there is also the issue of some number, perhaps into the millions,
of ordinary U.S. Postal Service mail being opened by the bully boys
and girls. And, I believe it is in 2009 that new Federal
requirements to state-issued driver's licenses to facilitate
central tracking takes effect. Now, too bad the same Beltway Boys
(and Girls) that have so blatantly ignored the law and their own
oaths of office don't have the same candor when asked to explain
their actions. And then, we have the issue of illegal aliens. Some
think the number is 12 million, others north of 20. Whatever the
number, the bill passed by Congress and signed into law by the
president mandating an 800 mile double fence across the border to
Mexico will never be finished, the Border Patrol is literally
scared blind into total inaction lest they too get jail time for
enforcing the law, and ICE simply sends the illegals back. Maybe
I've missed something small here, but I think I grasp the bigger
picture: it is only a VERY small step before all of us law abiding
citizens of this great country, the United States of America, will
be required to carry "papers" and travel authorizations reminiscent
of those required of French citizens during the Nazi occupation of
France for nearly 5 years. Think it cannot happen here? Well, think
again. Besides said FISA and USA PATRIOT Act (Uniting and
Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to
Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism), we have the historical
precedents of the Alien and Sedition Act during John Adams 2nd term
and the Sedition Act in Woodrow Wilson's 2nd term. Both made it a
federal crime to even criticize an elected official, so Lord knows
what such a law might be like with today's "activist" judges who
like more and more to legislate from the bench. Thankfully, the 2
prior sedition laws were overturned by the Supreme Court as being
unconstitutional, but the spectre of Big Brother from the George
Orwell novel "1984" looms ever and ever larger. I'll end this rant
by observing that if any of what I think is going on is at all what
is really going on, the Intel prediction is correct, and the horror
of civil libertarians everywhere is well-founded then it may well
come to pass that the Feds break down the door to our homes, arrest
us, and confiscate our PCs because they've been monitoring our E-
mails, Usenet posts, and web sites/hits and determined that we are
some perverted terrorist planning an attack. This quote from the
Holcaust sums it up a different way:

"First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was
not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak
out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade
unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade
unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak
out for me" - Jewish saying from the Holocaust

--
HP, aka Jerry

 

[Tim Smith]

That was a rather misleading title.

 

[bmillerjacobson@gmail.com]

On Nov 11, 11:12 pm, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com>
wrote:
> That was a rather misleading title.

Yeah when I first read the title, I was thinking processors, not
spies.

 

[Charlie Tame]

bmillerjacobson@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 11, 11:12 pm, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com>
> wrote:
>> That was a rather misleading title.
>
> Yeah when I first read the title, I was thinking processors, not
> spies.
>

The term "Intelligence" when applied in the context of "Government" is a
misnomer anyway

 

[Lil' Dave]

The Privacy Act of 1974 basically insinuated you have none.

The law protecting your medical record privacy wasn't meant for you. It was
meant for the medical professionals.

If you believe otherwise, oh well.

--
Dave
Profound is we're here due to a chance arrangement
of chemicals in the ocean billions of years ago.
More profound is we made it to the top of the food
chain per our reasoning abilities.
Most profound is the denial of why we may
be on the way out.
"jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message
news:CgPZi.2095$K35.980@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy
>
> WASHINGTON (AP) -- As Congress debates new rules for government
> eavesdropping, a top intelligence official says it is time that people in
> the United States changed their definition of privacy.
>
> Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal
> deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that
> government and businesses properly safeguard people's private
> communications
> and financial information.
>
> Kerr's comments come as Congress is taking a second look at the
> Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
>
> Lawmakers hastily changed the 1978 law last summer to allow the
> government to eavesdrop inside the United States without court permission,
> so long as one end of the conversation was reasonably believed to be
> located
> outside the U.S.
>
> The original law required a court order for any surveillance
> conducted
> on U.S. soil, to protect Americans' privacy. The White House argued that
> the
> law was obstructing intelligence gathering because, as technology has
> changed, a growing amount of foreign communications passes through
> U.S.-based channels.
>
> The most contentious issue in the new legislation is whether to
> shield
> telecommunications companies from civil lawsuits for allegedly giving the
> government access to people's private e-mails and phone calls without a
> FISA
> court order between 2001 and 2007.
>
> Some lawmakers, including members of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
> appear reluctant to grant immunity. Suits might be the only way to
> determine
> how far the government has burrowed into people's privacy without court
> permission.
>
> The committee is expected to decide this week whether its version of
> the bill will protect telecommunications companies. About 40 wiretapping
> suits are pending.
>
> The central witness in a California lawsuit against AT&T says the
> government is vacuuming up billions of e-mails and phone calls as they
> pass
> through an AT&T switching station in San Francisco.
>
> Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, helped connect a device in
> 2003
> that he says diverted and copied onto a government supercomputer every
> call,
> e-mail, and Internet site access on AT&T lines.
>
> The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed the class-action
> suit,
> claims there are as many as 20 such sites in the U.S.
>
> The White House has promised to veto any bill that does not grant
> immunity from suits such as this one.
>
> Congressional leaders hope to finish the bill by Thanksgiving. It
> would replace the FISA update enacted in August that privacy groups and
> civil libertarians say allows the government to read Americans' e-mails
> and
> listen to their phone calls without court oversight.
>
> Kerr said at an October intelligence conference in San Antonio that
> he
> finds concerns that the government may be listening in odd when people are
> "perfectly willing for a green-card holder at an (Internet service
> provider)
> who may or may have not have been an illegal entrant to the United States
> to
> handle their data."
>
> He noted that government employees face up to five years in prison
> and
> $100,000 in fines if convicted of misusing private information.
>
> Millions of people in this country - particularly young people -
> already have surrendered anonymity to social networking sites such as
> MySpace and Facebook, and to Internet commerce. These sites reveal to the
> public, government and corporations what was once closely guarded
> information, like personal statistics and credit card numbers.
>
> "Those two generations younger than we are have a very different idea
> of what is essential privacy, what they would wish to protect about their
> lives and affairs. And so, it's not for us to inflict one size fits all,"
> said Kerr, 68. "Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone
> that's typed in their name on Google understands that."
>
> "Our job now is to engage in a productive debate, which focuses on
> privacy as a component of appropriate levels of security and public
> safety,"
> Kerr said. "I think all of us have to really take stock of what we already
> are willing to give up, in terms of anonymity, but (also) what safeguards
> we
> want in place to be sure that giving that doesn't empty our bank account
> or
> do something equally bad elsewhere."
>
> Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff lawyer with the Electronic Frontier
> Foundation, an advocacy group that defends online free speech, privacy and
> intellectual property rights, said Kerr's argument ignores both privacy
> laws
> and American history.
>
> "Anonymity has been important since the Federalist Papers were
> written
> under pseudonyms," Opsahl said. "The government has tremendous power: the
> police power, the ability to arrest, to detain, to take away rights. Tying
> together that someone has spoken out on an issue with their identity is a
> far more dangerous thing if it is the government that is trying to tie it
> together."
>
> Opsahl also said Kerr ignores the distinction between sacrificing
> protection from an intrusive government and voluntarily disclosing
> information in exchange for a service.
>
> "There is something fundamentally different from the government
> having
> information about you than private parties," he said. "We shouldn't have
> to
> give people the choice between taking advantage of modern communication
> tools and sacrificing their privacy."
>
> "It's just another 'trust us, we're the government,'" he said.
>
>
> (Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
>
> http://www.11alive.com/news/article_news.aspx?storyid=106257
>
>
>

 

[Rich]

> The term "Intelligence" when applied in the context of "Government" is a
> misnomer anyway

Good lord .. you sure can tell there is a writers strike ...
you need 21st century material .. bone up man.

lets see .. an oxy'maroon ....
liberal intelligence?
or is that nuance?
or perhaps the 'narrative'
or perhaps fake but BOGUS?

or misdirection?

or for the greater good?

heh

 

[HeyBub]

HEMI-Powered wrote:
> Seems like we really do need some sort of change in the White House
> in 2008. it'd be nice if we could get it earlier, but we cannot.
> I'm not an attorney thus hardly a Constitutional law expert, but my
> simple engineer's mind in reading the Bill of Rights and the "due
> process of law" clause of the 14th amendment strongly suggests that
> the post-9/11 Big Brother changes brought about by FISA being
> emasculated and this thing people think is the Patriot Act has
> pretty much destroyed the Bill of Rights.

The president's Article II powers trumps almost everything else. In times of
war, interception of enemy and potential enemy communications is common
sense.

> Now, besides what this
> Intel guy says that I think is, as the Brits would say, Spot On,
> there is also the issue of some number, perhaps into the millions,
> of ordinary U.S. Postal Service mail being opened by the bully boys
> and girls.

No first class mail has ever been opened without a warrant.

> And, I believe it is in 2009 that new Federal
> requirements to state-issued driver's licenses to facilitate
> central tracking takes effect.

It's not to facilitate centralized tracking, although that is certainly one
of its features. The secure driver's license act is designed to make sure
terrorist don't get valid identification. Several of the 9-11 highjackers
held seemingly-valid state-issued drivers' licenses.

> it is only a VERY small step before all of us law abiding
> citizens of this great country, the United States of America, will
> be required to carry "papers" and travel authorizations reminiscent
> of those required of French citizens during the Nazi occupation of
> France for nearly 5 years.

No, you can travel anywhere you like. You just can't do it on an airplane or
by driving a car (for now).

>
I'll end this rant
> by observing that if any of what I think is going on is at all what
> is really going on, the Intel prediction is correct, and the horror
> of civil libertarians everywhere is well-founded then it may well
> come to pass that the Feds break down the door to our homes, arrest
> us, and confiscate our PCs because they've been monitoring our E-
> mails, Usenet posts, and web sites/hits and determined that we are
> some perverted terrorist planning an attack.

The fix is simple: don't be a perverted terrorist planning an attack. Follow
that rule and you should be okay. If you ARE a perverted terrorist planning
an attack, we'll get you. Why do you think almost no attacks have taken
place since 9-11?

 

[Charlie Tame]

Rich wrote:
>> The term "Intelligence" when applied in the context of "Government" is
>> a misnomer anyway
>
> Good lord .. you sure can tell there is a writers strike ...
> you need 21st century material .. bone up man.
>
> lets see .. an oxy'maroon ....
> liberal intelligence?
> or is that nuance?
> or perhaps the 'narrative'
> or perhaps fake but BOGUS?
>
> or misdirection?
>
> or for the greater good?
>
> heh


Hehe, the problem is actually complacency I think... judging from some
of the newsgroup posters (not these groups particularly) who defend this
erosion of privacy.

The Government claim such things as being to "Protect" you (or somebody)
from some hypothetical enemy. You "Know" that you are not a criminal /
thief / bad guy and you believe that the Government will only go after
the bad guys, so it is easier just to do nothing about it. Fact is
though that although "You" know you are not the bad guy, nobody else
knows that, so you are just as much a suspect as anybody else. Thus to
believe such legislation only affects bad guys (Pirates / terrorists /
criminals etc) is a complete fallacy.

Most of the proponents of the Iraq war (Which is supposedly to protect
us from terrorists) are "Armchair Generals" who were never in any danger
from terrorists anyway (Especially terrorists from Iraq) but it was much
"Easier" to go along with it than to think about it

In reality the Government can't protect you from anything, but it makes
their job of pretending to do so easier if the public simply complies...

 

[HEMI-Powered]

HeyBub added these comments in the current discussion du jour
....

> HEMI-Powered wrote:
>> Seems like we really do need some sort of change in the White
>> House in 2008. it'd be nice if we could get it earlier, but
>> we cannot. I'm not an attorney thus hardly a Constitutional
>> law expert, but my simple engineer's mind in reading the Bill
>> of Rights and the "due process of law" clause of the 14th
>> amendment strongly suggests that the post-9/11 Big Brother
>> changes brought about by FISA being emasculated and this
>> thing people think is the Patriot Act has pretty much
>> destroyed the Bill of Rights.
>
> The president's Article II powers trumps almost everything
> else. In times of war, interception of enemy and potential
> enemy communications is common sense.

I'm afraid it does not, HeyBob. No one, not even the CinC, is
above the law in this country as most people - and the courts -
believe. Trouble is, when Congress, scared blind by the 9/11
disaster and believing there really were WMD in Iraq authorized
unprecedented war powers and essentially abrogated the Bill of
Rights with both the USA PATRIOT Act and a hasty gutting of FISA,
overwhelmingly passed a comprehensive package of new CinC powers,
it didn't take this president long to figure out that he could
thumb his nose at the law, Congress, the UN, and the American
people with impunity. Many have tried from both sides of the
aisle during some 1,200 separate Congressional hearings to get
anyone in the Bush White House to even admit to knowing they
broke the law, much less do anything about it. However - and this
is VERY important - Congress and the American people have also
failed 100.000% to actually pin a criminal law offense on the
president or any of his appointees nor has there been the least
evidence to support an impeachment in the House.

Now, back to Article II. As you know - or should know - the base
powers of the Constitution as originally written did not pass
muster with the States and failed to be ratified, hence the Bill
of Rights was hastily added a year or so later. The Bill of
Rights does not GRANT new or modified power to any branch of the
Federal government, it LIMITS the power. Take a look at the 10th,
which sums it up this way "powers not specifically granted to the
federal government or prohibited therein are reserved for the
several states or the people." This has come to be known as the
"states rights" Amendment and is very powerful to augment the 1st
Amendment's right to "peaceably assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievance" but ASSUMES that a president
actually abides by his oath of office, the ENTIRE Constitution,
and the vast body of precedent case law, which our current CinC
has utterly failed to do for almost 7 years now.

Now, in past wars, presidents have slid past the Bill of Rights
such as when FDR interned not only legal Japanese aliens but both
naturalized and native born Japanese-Americans in what amounted
to be American concentration camps, after first confiscating all
their wealth and property with no compensation ever. But, back to
today, I have watched interviews with several current Supreme
Court Justices, but not the 2 appointed by President Bush of
course, that definitively say that while the Court does take a
strong stand on national defense and gives a sitting president
broad discretion in time of war, they do NOT - and have NOT -
granted special immunity. AFAIK, for example, the internment of
the Japanese was never challenged in court. What made that such
an egegious assault on these citizens rights was that neither
German-Americans or Italian-Americans were interned and pretty
much none were even interrogated. So, expediency and lack of
diligence by the people and the courts may well allow a rogue
president to tromp on people's rights. That can be very, very
necessary in narrow instances but we must be ever vigilant lest
wartime powers somehow get perverted and carried over once war is
won. And, the so-called War on Terror is unlike ANY previous war
in that we are not fighting organized combatants wearing uniforms
of a sovereign nation, we are fighting at best insurgents who are
religious extremists and sectarian enemies. In short, we are
fighting terrorists with al Qaeda who obey no laws and we are
fighting a civil war in Iraq that has basically been going on for
some 1,200+ years.

>> Now, besides what this
>> Intel guy says that I think is, as the Brits would say, Spot
>> On, there is also the issue of some number, perhaps into the
>> millions, of ordinary U.S. Postal Service mail being opened
>> by the bully boys and girls.
>
> No first class mail has ever been opened without a warrant.

It not only has been, it continues to be opened. Sometimes with a
warrant, more often not. One mod to FISA lengthened the time to
get a FISA Court Warrant from 72 hours to 30 days but even that
wasn't enough for this president. Some 30%, probably more, of all
domestic surveillance NEVER even has an application for a
warrant. And, if 1st class mail is being opened, who would know?
Now, in fairness, I cannot categorically prove that this is going
on any more than you can prove the negative hypothesis that NONE
is being opened. It is a danger the American people must
recognize and reach some balance on wrt THEIR rights to privacy
vs. the "rights" of our real or peceived enemies.

>> And, I believe it is in 2009 that new Federal
>> requirements to state-issued driver's licenses to facilitate
>> central tracking takes effect.
>
> It's not to facilitate centralized tracking, although that is
> certainly one of its features. The secure driver's license act
> is designed to make sure terrorist don't get valid
> identification. Several of the 9-11 highjackers held
> seemingly-valid state-issued drivers' licenses.

It isn't designed for intelligence, maybe, but it certainly
facilitates easy access. There is an opt out clause in the law
but if state(s) do choose to opt out, then their driver's
licenses cannot be used for such things as ID for boarding an
airliner, buying a fire arm, and other such things, so
essentially, the states find themselves in a Hobson's Choice.
But, again, since the current Administration uses stone-walling
and obfuscation to avoid fessing up to their true intentions,
nobody really knows what this new law does or does not truly
intend, do they? No, I think not.

>> it is only a VERY small step before all of us law abiding
>> citizens of this great country, the United States of America,
>> will be required to carry "papers" and travel authorizations
>> reminiscent of those required of French citizens during the
>> Nazi occupation of France for nearly 5 years.
>
> No, you can travel anywhere you like. You just can't do it on
> an airplane or by driving a car (for now).

I know you can travel anywhere you like - NOW - what I was
talking about was the very short leap from where we are today
with simplistic photo ID to being required to carry "papers" that
identify us, where we live, and where we are allowed to travel.
And again, it saddans and angers me that the same president that
would like to impose total control on his own citizens appears to
be in bed with this nutbag Vincente Fox and is doing NOTHING to
stem the tide of illegal aliens nor making ANY attempts to
identify the ones already here and deport them.
>>
> I'll end this rant
>> by observing that if any of what I think is going on is at
>> all what is really going on, the Intel prediction is correct,
>> and the horror of civil libertarians everywhere is
>> well-founded then it may well come to pass that the Feds
>> break down the door to our homes, arrest us, and confiscate
>> our PCs because they've been monitoring our E- mails, Usenet
>> posts, and web sites/hits and determined that we are some
>> perverted terrorist planning an attack.
>
> The fix is simple: don't be a perverted terrorist planning an
> attack. Follow that rule and you should be okay. If you ARE a
> perverted terrorist planning an attack, we'll get you. Why do
> you think almost no attacks have taken place since 9-11?
>
I'm afraid your logic doesn't wash. The old cop's trick "you'll
talk to us if you have nothing to hide" just won't do. Either
American citizens have their Bill of Rights freedoms, rights, and
protections or they do not. Just because 20 terrorists got past
the FBI in 2001 is not, not, NOT any justifcation whatsoever to
abrogate the freedoms, rights, and protections of some
300,000,000 citizens, made even more outrageous by the de facto
granting of rights to illegals that even citizens no longer
enjoy! The time has come to either stand up for our
Constitutional rights by electing leaders who can defend this
country AND defend civil liberties, or we simply roll over and
let Big Brother take over.

--
HP, aka Jerry

 

[HeyBub]

HEMI-Powered wrote:
> HeyBub added these comments in the current discussion du jour
>>>
>> The president's Article II powers trumps almost everything
>> else. In times of war, interception of enemy and potential
>> enemy communications is common sense.
>
> I'm afraid it does not, HeyBob. No one, not even the CinC, is
> above the law in this country as most people - and the courts -
> believe.

First, there is no "law" (in the ususal sense) governing the conduct of war.
Where constitutional provisions are in conflict (you "must" do something vs.
you "may not" do something), the courts have to sort it out. The courts have
uniformly sided with the president's Article II powers.

> Trouble is, when Congress, scared blind by the 9/11
> disaster and believing there really were WMD in Iraq authorized
> unprecedented war powers and essentially abrogated the Bill of
> Rights with both the USA PATRIOT Act and a hasty gutting of FISA,
> overwhelmingly passed a comprehensive package of new CinC powers,
> it didn't take this president long to figure out that he could
> thumb his nose at the law, Congress, the UN, and the American
> people with impunity. Many have tried from both sides of the
> aisle during some 1,200 separate Congressional hearings to get
> anyone in the Bush White House to even admit to knowing they
> broke the law, much less do anything about it.

The Patriot Act has nothing to do with the president's war-making powers.

> However - and this
> is VERY important - Congress and the American people have also
> failed 100.000% to actually pin a criminal law offense on the
> president or any of his appointees nor has there been the least
> evidence to support an impeachment in the House.

Well, that ought to tell you that, most likely, no laws have been broken.

>
> Now, back to Article II. As you know - or should know - the base
> powers of the Constitution as originally written did not pass
> muster with the States and failed to be ratified, hence the Bill
> of Rights was hastily added a year or so later.

I know no such thing. The Constitution was ratified June 21, 1788 and became
the law of the land on that date. The Bill of Rights was ratified more three
years later, on December 15, 1791.


> The Bill of
> Rights does not GRANT new or modified power to any branch of the
> Federal government, it LIMITS the power. Take a look at the 10th,
> which sums it up this way "powers not specifically granted to the
> federal government or prohibited therein are reserved for the
> several states or the people." This has come to be known as the
> "states rights" Amendment and is very powerful to augment the 1st
> Amendment's right to "peaceably assemble and petition the
> government for redress of grievance" but ASSUMES that a president
> actually abides by his oath of office, the ENTIRE Constitution,
> and the vast body of precedent case law, which our current CinC
> has utterly failed to do for almost 7 years now.

The Tenth Amendment is the cause celebre of those who know nothing of
Constitutional Law. There have been virtually NO cases decided in a state's
or individual's favor based on the Tenth Amendment (or the Ninth, for that
matter).

>
> Now, in past wars, presidents have slid past the Bill of Rights
> such as when FDR interned not only legal Japanese aliens but both
> naturalized and native born Japanese-Americans in what amounted
> to be American concentration camps, after first confiscating all
> their wealth and property with no compensation ever.

The Japanese WERE compensated (averaged about $20,000 each).

>> The fix is simple: don't be a perverted terrorist planning an
>> attack. Follow that rule and you should be okay. If you ARE a
>> perverted terrorist planning an attack, we'll get you. Why do
>> you think almost no attacks have taken place since 9-11?
>>
> I'm afraid your logic doesn't wash. The old cop's trick "you'll
> talk to us if you have nothing to hide" just won't do. Either
> American citizens have their Bill of Rights freedoms, rights, and
> protections or they do not.

There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. You'll note the 4th
Amendment proscribes "unreasonable searches and seizures." Reasonable
searches are okay.

> Just because 20 terrorists got past
> the FBI in 2001 is not, not, NOT any justifcation whatsoever to
> abrogate the freedoms, rights, and protections of some
> 300,000,000 citizens, made even more outrageous by the de facto
> granting of rights to illegals that even citizens no longer
> enjoy! The time has come to either stand up for our
> Constitutional rights by electing leaders who can defend this
> country AND defend civil liberties, or we simply roll over and
> let Big Brother take over.

The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.

In times of national stress, additional restrictions are often imposed.
During WW2, for example, the sailing times of troop ships could not be
published. Would you put 5,000 soldiers lives at submarine peril to uphold
the dignity of Freedom of the Press?

 

[HEMI-Powered]

HeyBub added these comments in the current discussion du jour
....

>>> The president's Article II powers trumps almost everything
>>> else. In times of war, interception of enemy and potential
>>> enemy communications is common sense.
>>
>> I'm afraid it does not, HeyBob. No one, not even the CinC, is
>> above the law in this country as most people - and the courts
>> - believe.
>
> First, there is no "law" (in the ususal sense) governing the
> conduct of war. Where constitutional provisions are in
> conflict (you "must" do something vs. you "may not" do
> something), the courts have to sort it out. The courts have
> uniformly sided with the president's Article II powers.

No, again, I'm sorry, but the courts have NOT ruled this way.
But, wrt to Iraq, the courts haven't heard a single case. Keep in
mind that the majority of Amendments limit the power of the
Federal government. It is the rare one, like the 16th which
authorized a tax on income, that expands its power. Congress
still has both the power and the responsibility under the concept
of separation of powers and advise and consent to prevent an
errant CinC from running amok. They simply are either unable or
unwilling to do so. It really is quite simple: sanction the
president and remove his power to write checks for the war and
see how far he gets.

Now, again back to Article II...War in the 18th Century was so
far removed from even WWI/WWII as to make the CinC's powers
anacronistic at best, and moot/academic in general. Yes, given
war powers granted by a resolution of Congress, as for Operation
Iraqi Freedom, and given budget authorization, then, and ONLY
then, the president is free to prosecute the "war" in what he
believes the most appropriate way is. A BIG reason why courts
have been reluctant to enter the fray this time around is really
two-fold: 1) Congress did in fact authorize the war and fund it
and 2) no one for inexplicable reasons has challenged the
president in court. I would've thought the Democrats would take
on President Bush once they regained control of Congress but they
haven't.

>> Trouble is, when Congress, scared blind by the 9/11
>> disaster and believing there really were WMD in Iraq
>> authorized unprecedented war powers and essentially abrogated
>> the Bill of Rights with both the USA PATRIOT Act and a hasty
>> gutting of FISA, overwhelmingly passed a comprehensive
>> package of new CinC powers, it didn't take this president
>> long to figure out that he could thumb his nose at the law,
>> Congress, the UN, and the American people with impunity. Many
>> have tried from both sides of the aisle during some 1,200
>> separate Congressional hearings to get anyone in the Bush
>> White House to even admit to knowing they broke the law, much
>> less do anything about it.
>
> The Patriot Act has nothing to do with the president's
> war-making powers.

the USA PATRIOT Act has little to do with war but everything to
do with gathering intelligence without regard to protections in
the Bill of Rights. This is the focus of this thread and I stand
by my views on that, and on the gutting of FISA.

>> However - and this
>> is VERY important - Congress and the American people have
>> also failed 100.000% to actually pin a criminal law offense
>> on the president or any of his appointees nor has there been
>> the least evidence to support an impeachment in the House.
>
> Well, that ought to tell you that, most likely, no laws have
> been broken.

How do you know? Congress cannot get a single person, not even
the few they've granted immunity from prosecution to to turn in
the president. Just because the District Court for D.C. hasn't
indicted the president - and it is damn unlikely that a Bush
appointee would ever do that - doth NOT in my view prove that no
laws were broken. It is just that a president enjoys the same
protections granted by the Bill of Rights as anyone else and
absent clear evidence to support a criminal indictment for
himself or any of his appointees and absent a clear impeachable
offense, he will sundown his way into history unchallenged and
unscathed. But, history will give President Bush the legacy he
deserves - far and away, he is the most flagrant violator of the
Constitution and Federal law of ANY president to date, including
Nixon and Watergate. But, no one will ever really know the truth.
Do you?

>>
>> Now, back to Article II. As you know - or should know - the
>> base powers of the Constitution as originally written did not
>> pass muster with the States and failed to be ratified, hence
>> the Bill of Rights was hastily added a year or so later.
>
> I know no such thing. The Constitution was ratified June 21,
> 1788 and became the law of the land on that date. The Bill of
> Rights was ratified more three years later, on December 15,
> 1791.

Then, I sugges that you take a remedial course in American
Government or Civics. When it became obvious to the
Constitutional Convention that the minimum 2/3 of states would
fail to ratify the base Constitution, disaster was averted ONLY
by promising to write and re-submit for ratification the Bill of
Rights. So, the several states essentially held a gun to the head
of both the president and Congress that they would un-ratify the
Constitution if protections against the abuses suffered under a
couple hundred years of English rule were not addressed. And,
also keep in mind that ALL the Amendments modify, limit or expand
on powers of the Federal government and not only can, but have
altered or removed provisions in the base Articles. Since this is
getting more and more contentious, I'll include the full text at
the end of this post.
>
>> The Bill of
>> Rights does not GRANT new or modified power to any branch of
>> the Federal government, it LIMITS the power. Take a look at
>> the 10th, which sums it up this way "powers not specifically
>> granted to the federal government or prohibited therein are
>> reserved for the several states or the people." This has come
>> to be known as the "states rights" Amendment and is very
>> powerful to augment the 1st Amendment's right to "peaceably
>> assemble and petition the government for redress of
>> grievance" but ASSUMES that a president actually abides by
>> his oath of office, the ENTIRE Constitution, and the vast
>> body of precedent case law, which our current CinC has
>> utterly failed to do for almost 7 years now.
>
> The Tenth Amendment is the cause celebre of those who know
> nothing of Constitutional Law. There have been virtually NO
> cases decided in a state's or individual's favor based on the
> Tenth Amendment (or the Ninth, for that matter).

Look here, the 10th may be incorrectly used by Southern States to
assert rights not really granted to them, but it was and still is
today the fundamental way that states and/or the people can mount
petition drives to place ballot proposals on a state ballot
and/or to formally petition the goverment for redress of
grievances as listed in the 1st Amendment. Again, for them who
don't understand this stuff, the Constitution and all of the
Amendments were intentionally written to be very vague so that
constant new Amendments would not be necessary. The 10th simply
codifies for the Congress and the Federal courts what the Framers
intended - if WE THE PEOPLE don't give you the power, then it is
the several states OR the people who retain it. How much easier
is it to understand than that?
>>
>> Now, in past wars, presidents have slid past the Bill of
>> Rights such as when FDR interned not only legal Japanese
>> aliens but both naturalized and native born
>> Japanese-Americans in what amounted to be American
>> concentration camps, after first confiscating all their
>> wealth and property with no compensation ever.
>
> The Japanese WERE compensated (averaged about $20,000 each).

It is still in the courts. I don't believe the recompense was
ever paid, but you dodged my point - a clear and present danger
to the rights of Japanese-Americans was conducted with NO due
process of law. No indictments for espionage were ever filed and
no trials ever held. The government simply rounded up the
Japanese and interned them for the duration of the war.
>
>>> The fix is simple: don't be a perverted terrorist planning
>>> an attack. Follow that rule and you should be okay. If you
>>> ARE a perverted terrorist planning an attack, we'll get you.
>>> Why do you think almost no attacks have taken place since
>>> 9-11?
>>>
>> I'm afraid your logic doesn't wash. The old cop's trick
>> "you'll talk to us if you have nothing to hide" just won't
>> do. Either American citizens have their Bill of Rights
>> freedoms, rights, and protections or they do not.
>
> There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. You'll note
> the 4th Amendment proscribes "unreasonable searches and
> seizures." Reasonable searches are okay.

The devil is in the detail here. Yes, there really is both
implied and express privacy in the Constitution, as elucidated in
the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments and parts of others. However,
as technology has risen to prominence in the last decade, the
entire notion of privacy has had to be revisited. The issue was
and is simply this: for a search to be "reasonable", a warrant
MUST be issued. Surely you will concede this fundamental concept.
Or, if you're still not convinced, the due process clause of the
14th takes over. The Federal government may usurp its authority -
and has many times - but if it follows the Contitution, then to
wire tap, look at 1st class mail, credit card records, driver's
licenses, E-mail, and the like, then to be "reasonable" they
first need probable cause that a crime has been committed or
reasonable reason to believe one is in progress or being planned.
To avert criminals getting away, both ordinary judges and FISA
Court judges allow broad discretion in these matters, however if
the law is followed, and a warrant is never obtained, then the
ALLEGED criminal or terrorist should be released.

>> Just because 20 terrorists got past
>> the FBI in 2001 is not, not, NOT any justifcation whatsoever
>> to abrogate the freedoms, rights, and protections of some
>> 300,000,000 citizens, made even more outrageous by the de
>> facto granting of rights to illegals that even citizens no
>> longer enjoy! The time has come to either stand up for our
>> Constitutional rights by electing leaders who can defend this
>> country AND defend civil liberties, or we simply roll over
>> and let Big Brother take over.
>
> The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.

I didn't say it was. I said "use it or lose it." Simply put, the
history of dictators and demagogues in the world have always
began by taking over power bit by bit with little or no objection
by citizens. Hell, Adolph Hitler rose to power by supposedly
democratic election!

> In times of national stress, additional restrictions are often
> imposed. During WW2, for example, the sailing times of troop
> ships could not be published. Would you put 5,000 soldiers
> lives at submarine peril to uphold the dignity of Freedom of
> the Press?
>
Don't be rediculous. You know damn well what I'm talking about,
you're just entertaining yourself with what is increasing looking
like trolling.



The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more
perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our
Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

Article. I.

Section. 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a
Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate
and House of Representatives.

Section. 2.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen
every second Year by the People of the several States, and the
Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite
for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State
Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained
to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen
of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an
Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the
several States which may be included within this Union, according
to their respective

Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number
of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of
Years, and excluding Indians of three fifths of all other
Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years
after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United

States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such
Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives
shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State
shall have at Least one Representative and until such
enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be
entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and
Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New
Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six,
Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and
Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the
Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill
such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other
Officers and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Section. 3.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators
from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years
and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the
first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into
three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall
be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second
Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third
Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may
be chosen every second Year and if Vacancies happen by
Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature
of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary
Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which
shall then fill such Vacancies.

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the
Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United
States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that
State for which he shall be chosen.

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the
Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall choose their other Officers, and also a
President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or
when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United
States.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or
Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried,
the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted
without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to
removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any
Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the
Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to
Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Section. 4.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators
and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the
Legislature thereof but the Congress may at any time by Law make
or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing
Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such
Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they
shall by Law appoint a different Day.

Section. 5.
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and
Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall
constitute a Quorum to do Business but a smaller Number may
adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the
Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such
Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its
Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of
two thirds, expel a Member.

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time
to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their
Judgment require Secrecy and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of
either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of
those Present, be entered on the Journal.

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the
Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to
any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be
sitting.

Section. 6.
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for
their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the
Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except
Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from
Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective
Houses, and in going to and returning from the same and for any
Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in
any other Place.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he
was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority
of the United States, which shall have been created, or the
Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time
and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall
be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

Section. 7.
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of
Representatives but the Senate may propose or concur with
Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives
and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to
the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign
it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that
House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the
Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider
it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall
agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the
Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be
reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it
shall become a Law.

But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be
determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting
for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each
House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the
President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have
been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as
if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment
prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the
Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a
question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of
the United States and before the Same shall take Effect, shall
be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be
repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of
Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations
prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United
States

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian Tribes

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws
on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin,
and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities
and current Coin of the United States

To establish Post Offices and post Roads

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing
for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to
their respective Writings and Discoveries

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high
Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make
Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to
that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years

To provide and maintain a Navy

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and
naval Forces

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of
the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the
Service of the United States, reserving to the States
respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority
of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by
Congress

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over
such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession
of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the
Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like
Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the
Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the
Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other
needful Buildings--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested
by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or
in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section. 9.
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States
now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited
by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and
eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not
exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be
suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the
public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in
Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to
be taken.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or
Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another nor
shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter,
clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of
Appropriations made by Law and a regular Statement and Account
of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be
published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And
no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them,
shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any
present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from
any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Section. 10.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation
grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal coin Money emit Bills of
Credit make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in
Payment of Debts pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law,
or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any

Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any
Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be
absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the
net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on
Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the
United States and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision
and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of
Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter
into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a
foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in
such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

Article. II.

Section. 1.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United
States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of
four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the
same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature
thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole
Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be
entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or
Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United
States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by
Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an
Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make
a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes
for each which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit
sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States,
directed to the President of the Senate.

The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate
and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the
Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest
Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a
Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed and if there
be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number
of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately
chuse by Ballot one of them for President and if no Person have
a majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House
shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the
President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation
from each State having one Vote A quorum for this purpose shall
consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and
a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice.

In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person
having the greatest number of Votes of the Electors shall be the
Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have
equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice
President.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and
the Day on which they shall give their Votes which Day shall be
the same throughout the United States.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the
United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,
shall be eligible to the Office of President neither shall any
Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to
the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a resident
within the United States.

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his
Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and
Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice
President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of
Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President
and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as
President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the
Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a
Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished
during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he
shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the
United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the
following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm)
that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the
United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of
the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when
called into the actual Service of the United States he may
require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each
of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the
Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to
grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United
States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the
Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators
present concur and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice
and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other
public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and
all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are
not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established
by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such
inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone,
in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may
happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions
which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section. 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of
the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such
Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient he may, on
extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them,
and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the
Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall
think proper he shall receive Ambassadors and other public
Ministers he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully
executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United
States.

Section. 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the
United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for,
and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
Misdemeanors.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

Article III.

Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one
supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may
from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the
supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good
Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services
a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their
Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity,
arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,
and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their
Authority--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public
Ministers and Consuls--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime
Jurisdiction--to Controversies to which the United States shall
be a Party--to Controversies between two or more States--
between a State and Citizens of another State--between Citizens
of different States--between Citizens of the same State claiming
Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or
the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and
Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme
Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases
before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate
Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and
under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be
by Jury and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said
Crimes shall have been committed but when not committed within
any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the
Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying
War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them
Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless
on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on
Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to
declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason
shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the
Life of the Person attainted.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

Article. IV.

Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public
Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And
the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which
such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the
Effect thereof.

Section. 2.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges
and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. A Person
charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who
shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on
Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he
fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having
Jurisdiction of the Crime.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws
thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law
or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour,
but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such
Service or Labour may be due.

Section. 3.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union but
no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction
of any other State nor any State be formed by the Junction of
two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of
the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the
Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful
Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property
belonging to the United States and nothing in this Constitution
shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United
States, or of any particular State.

Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them
against Invasion and on Application of the Legislature, or of
the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against
domestic Violence.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on
the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several
States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which,
in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as
Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of
three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three
fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may
be proposed by the Congress Provided that no Amendment which may
be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight
shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the
Ninth Section of the first Article and that no State, without
its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the
Senate.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
Article. VI.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the
Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the
United States under this Constitution, as under the
Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall
be made in Pursuance thereof and all Treaties made, or which
shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be
the supreme Law of the Land and the Judges in every State shall
be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any
State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the
Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and
judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several
States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this
Constitution but no religious Test shall ever be required as a
Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United
States.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

Article. VII.

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be
sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the
States so ratifying the Same.

The Word, "the," being interlined between the seventh and eighth
Lines of the first Page, the Word "Thirty" being partly written
on an Erazure in the fifteenth Line of the first Page, The Words
"is tried" being interlined between the thirty second and thirty
third Lines of the first Page and the Word "the" being interlined
between the forty third and forty fourth Lines of the second
Page.

Attest William Jackson Secretary

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present
the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one
thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence
of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We
have hereunto subscribed our Names,

G°. Washington
President and deputy from Virginia

Delaware
Geo: Read
Gunning Bedford jun
John Dickinson
Richard Bassett
Jaco: Broom

Maryland
James McHenry
Dan of St Thos. Jenifer
Danl. Carroll

Virginia
John Blair
James Madison Jr.

North Carolina
Wm. Blount
Richd. Dobbs Spaight
Hu Williamson

South Carolina
J. Rutledge
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
Charles Pinckney
Pierce Butler

Georgia
William Few
Abr Baldwin

New Hampshire
John Langdon
Nicholas Gilman

Massachusetts
Nathaniel Gorham
Rufus King

Connecticut
Wm. Saml. Johnson
Roger Sherman

New York
Alexander Hamilton

New Jersey
Wil: Livingston
David Brearley
Wm. Paterson
Jona: Dayton

Pennsylvania
B Franklin
Thomas Mifflin
Robt. Morris
Geo. Clymer
Thos. FitzSimons
Jared Ingersoll
James Wilson
Gouv Morris


For biographies of the non-signing delegates to the
Constitutional Convention, see the Founding Fathers page.


Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for
a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a
free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall
not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house,
without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a
manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

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.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand
jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in
the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public
danger nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to
be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb nor shall be compelled
in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right
to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state
and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which
district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation to be
confronted with the witnesses against him to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall
exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be
preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise
reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to
the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to
the states respectively, or to the people.


The Constitution: Amendments XI to XXVII

Constitutional Amendments 1-10 make up what is known as The Bill
of Rights.
Amendments 11-27 are listed below.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

AMENDMENT XI

Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.

Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by
amendment 11.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to
extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted
against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or
by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

AMENDMENT XII

Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804.

Note: A portion of Article II, section 1 of the Constitution was
superseded by the 12th amendment.

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by
ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least,
shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves
they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as
President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-
President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons
voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-
President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they
shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the
government of the United States, directed to the President of the
Senate -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of
the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the
certificates and the votes shall then be counted -- The person
having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the
President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of
Electors appointed and if no person have such majority, then
from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three
on the list of those voted for as President, the House of
Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the
President.

But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by
states, the representation from each state having one vote a
quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from
two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall
be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives
shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall
devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following,
then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the
death or other constitutional disability of the President. --]*
The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President,
shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the
whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a
majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the
Senate shall choose the Vice-President a quorum for the purpose
shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and
a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice.
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of
President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the
United States.

*Superseded by section 3 of the 20th amendment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

AMENDMENT XIII

Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.

Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was
superseded by the 13th amendment.

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall
exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction.

Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by
section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities
of citizens of the United States nor shall any State deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States
according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number
of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when
the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for
President and Vice-President of the United States,
Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers
of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied
to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one
years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way
abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime,
the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the
proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to
the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such
States

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office,
civil or military, under the United States, or under any State,
who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or
as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State
legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State,
to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have
engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given
aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote
of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized
by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and
bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion,
shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any
State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid
of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any
claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave but all such
debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate
legislation, the provisions of this article.

*Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

AMENDMENT XV

Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be
denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on
account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--

Section 2.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

AMENDMENT XVI

Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by
amendment 16.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on
incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment
among the several States, and without regard to any census or
enumeration.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

AMENDMENT XVII

Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by
the 17th amendment.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators
from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years
and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State
shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most
numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the
Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs
of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the
legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to
make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies
by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the
election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as
part of the Constitution.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

AMENDMENT XVIII

Passed by Congress December 18, 1917. Ratified January 16, 1919.
Repealed by amendment 21.

Section 1.
After one year from the ratification of this article the
manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors
within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof
from the United States and all territory subject to the
jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2.
The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power
to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been
ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures
of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within
seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States
by the Congress.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

AMENDMENT XIX

Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be
denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on
account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

AMENDMENT XX

Passed by Congress March 2, 1932. Ratified January 23, 1933.

Note: Article I, section 4, of the Constitution was modified by
section 2 of this amendment. In addition, a portion of the 12th
amendment was superseded by section 3.

Section 1.
The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at
noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and
Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in
which such terms would have ended if this article had not been
ratified and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Section 2.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such
meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they
shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3.
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the
President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice
President elect shall become President.

If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed
for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall
have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act
as President until a President shall have qualified and the
Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a
President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified,
declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which
one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act
accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have
qualified.

Section 4.
The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any
of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose
a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon
them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from
whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever
the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

Section 5.
Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October
following the ratification of this article.

Section 6.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been
ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures
of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from
the date of its submission.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

AMENDMENT XXI

Passed by Congress February 20, 1933. Ratified December 5, 1933.

Section 1.
The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the
United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2.
The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or
Possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of
intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby
prohibited.

Section 3.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been
ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in
the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven
years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the
Congress.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

AMENDMENT XXII

Passed by Congress March 21, 1947. Ratified February 27, 1951.

Section 1.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more
than twice, and no person who has held the office of President,
or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which
some other person was elected President shall be elected to the
office of President more than once. But this Article shall not
apply to any person holding the office of President when this
Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any
person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as
President, during the term within which this Article becomes
operative from holding the office of President or acting as
President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been
ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures
of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from
the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

AMENDMENT XXIII

Passed by Congress June 16, 1960. Ratified March 29, 1961.

Section 1.
The District constituting the seat of Government of the United
States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the
whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which
the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no
event more than the least populous State they shall be in
addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be
considered, for the purposes of the election of President and
Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State and they
shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by
the twelfth article of amendment.

Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

AMENDMENT XXIV

Passed by Congress August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23, 1964.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary
or other election for President or Vice President, for electors
for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative
in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States
or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.

Section 2.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

AMENDMENT XXV

Passed by Congress July 6, 1965. Ratified February 10, 1967.

Note: Article II, section 1, of the Constitution was affected by
the 25th amendment.

Section 1.
In case of the removal of the President from office or of his
death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2.
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President,
the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take
office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of
Congress.

Section 3.
Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of
the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his
written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and
duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written
declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be
discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the
principal officers of the executive departments or of such other
body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President
pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives their written declaration that the President is
unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice
President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the
office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro
tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists,
he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the
Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of
the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by
law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro
tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives their written declaration that the President is
unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.

Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within
forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the
Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter
written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within
twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble,
determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President
is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the
Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting
President otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and
duties of his office.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

AMENDMENT XXVI

Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971.

Note: Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified
by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen
years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by
the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

AMENDMENT XXVII

Originally proposed Sept. 25, 1789. Ratified May 7, 1992.

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators
and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of
representatives shall have intervened.




Page URL: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-
experience/charters/
constitution_amendments_11-27.html


U.S. National Archives & Records Administration
8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD, 20740-6001, o 1-86-NARA-NARA
o 1-866-272-6272




MS Word formatting by Jerry Rivers, May 28, 2006


--
HP, aka Jerry

 

[john]

"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
news:e3dl%23pOJIHA.2100@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> bmillerjacobson@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Nov 11, 11:12 pm, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com>
>> wrote:
>>> That was a rather misleading title.
>>
>> Yeah when I first read the title, I was thinking processors, not
>> spies.
>>
>
> The term "Intelligence" when applied in the context of "Government" is a
> misnomer anyway
>

it gets tougher, as you get older, to talk about a lack of intelligence in
government, without also questioning the intelligence of the citizens who
put those people there in the first place, and continue to do so, election
after election.

 

[Jerry McBride]

jim wrote:

> Intel Official: Expect Less Privacy
>
> WASHINGTON (AP) -- As Congress debates new rules for government
> eavesdropping, a top intelligence official says it is time that people in
> the United States changed their definition of privacy.
>
> Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the
> principal
> deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that
> government and businesses properly safeguard people's private
> communications and financial information.
>
> Kerr's comments come as Congress is taking a second look at the
> Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
>
> Lawmakers hastily changed the 1978 law last summer to allow the
> government to eavesdrop inside the United States without court permission,
> so long as one end of the conversation was reasonably believed to be
> located outside the U.S.
>
> The original law required a court order for any surveillance
> conducted
> on U.S. soil, to protect Americans' privacy. The White House argued that
> the law was obstructing intelligence gathering because, as technology has
> changed, a growing amount of foreign communications passes through
> U.S.-based channels.
>
> The most contentious issue in the new legislation is whether to
> shield
> telecommunications companies from civil lawsuits for allegedly giving the
> government access to people's private e-mails and phone calls without a
> FISA court order between 2001 and 2007.
>
> Some lawmakers, including members of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
> appear reluctant to grant immunity. Suits might be the only way to
> determine how far the government has burrowed into people's privacy
> without court permission.
>
> The committee is expected to decide this week whether its version of
> the bill will protect telecommunications companies. About 40 wiretapping
> suits are pending.
>
> The central witness in a California lawsuit against AT&T says the
> government is vacuuming up billions of e-mails and phone calls as they
> pass through an AT&T switching station in San Francisco.
>
> Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, helped connect a device in
> 2003
> that he says diverted and copied onto a government supercomputer every
> call, e-mail, and Internet site access on AT&T lines.
>
> The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed the class-action
> suit,
> claims there are as many as 20 such sites in the U.S.
>
> The White House has promised to veto any bill that does not grant
> immunity from suits such as this one.
>
> Congressional leaders hope to finish the bill by Thanksgiving. It
> would replace the FISA update enacted in August that privacy groups and
> civil libertarians say allows the government to read Americans' e-mails
> and listen to their phone calls without court oversight.
>
> Kerr said at an October intelligence conference in San Antonio that
> he
> finds concerns that the government may be listening in odd when people are
> "perfectly willing for a green-card holder at an (Internet service
> provider) who may or may have not have been an illegal entrant to the
> United States to handle their data."
>
> He noted that government employees face up to five years in prison
> and
> $100,000 in fines if convicted of misusing private information.
>
> Millions of people in this country - particularly young people -
> already have surrendered anonymity to social networking sites such as
> MySpace and Facebook, and to Internet commerce. These sites reveal to the
> public, government and corporations what was once closely guarded
> information, like personal statistics and credit card numbers.
>
> "Those two generations younger than we are have a very different
> idea
> of what is essential privacy, what they would wish to protect about their
> lives and affairs. And so, it's not for us to inflict one size fits all,"
> said Kerr, 68. "Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone
> that's typed in their name on Google understands that."
>
> "Our job now is to engage in a productive debate, which focuses on
> privacy as a component of appropriate levels of security and public
> safety," Kerr said. "I think all of us have to really take stock of what
> we already are willing to give up, in terms of anonymity, but (also) what
> safeguards we want in place to be sure that giving that doesn't empty our
> bank account or do something equally bad elsewhere."
>
> Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff lawyer with the Electronic Frontier
> Foundation, an advocacy group that defends online free speech, privacy and
> intellectual property rights, said Kerr's argument ignores both privacy
> laws and American history.
>
> "Anonymity has been important since the Federalist Papers were
> written
> under pseudonyms," Opsahl said. "The government has tremendous power: the
> police power, the ability to arrest, to detain, to take away rights. Tying
> together that someone has spoken out on an issue with their identity is a
> far more dangerous thing if it is the government that is trying to tie it
> together."
>
> Opsahl also said Kerr ignores the distinction between sacrificing
> protection from an intrusive government and voluntarily disclosing
> information in exchange for a service.
>
> "There is something fundamentally different from the government
> having
> information about you than private parties," he said. "We shouldn't have
> to give people the choice between taking advantage of modern communication
> tools and sacrificing their privacy."
>
> "It's just another 'trust us, we're the government,'" he said.
>
>
> (Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
>
> http://www.11alive.com/news/article_news.aspx?storyid=106257

All I care about is this... PLEASE don't base this on windows.... PLEASE!


--

Jerry McBride (jmcbride@mail-on.us)

 

[Charlie Tame]

john wrote:
> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
> news:e3dl%23pOJIHA.2100@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> bmillerjacobson@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Nov 11, 11:12 pm, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> That was a rather misleading title.
>>> Yeah when I first read the title, I was thinking processors, not
>>> spies.
>>>
>> The term "Intelligence" when applied in the context of "Government" is a
>> misnomer anyway
>>
>
> it gets tougher, as you get older, to talk about a lack of intelligence in
> government, without also questioning the intelligence of the citizens who
> put those people there in the first place, and continue to do so, election
> after election.
>
>


100% agree, but of course the choice of who they "Can" put there is
limited. It "Should" be possible for any American to become President,
but it is not. Only by passing through a number of filters can this be
done because the system imposes eligibility rules that are as much
designed to preserve the system as anything else

The system has also learned to reward those with the wrong priorities,
not because there is some "Definition" of right and wrong but because
either is "Wrong" taken to excess. The system has "Evolved" to preserve
itself, and just as in real life the strongest is not always the "Best".

 

[baynole2@yahoo.com]

On Nov 12, 7:27 am, "HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> HEMI-Powered wrote:
> > Seems like we really do need some sort of change in the White House
> > in 2008. it'd be nice if we could get it earlier, but we cannot.
> > I'm not an attorney thus hardly a Constitutional law expert, but my
> > simple engineer's mind in reading the Bill of Rights and the "due
> > process of law" clause of the 14th amendment strongly suggests that
> > the post-9/11 Big Brother changes brought about by FISA being
> > emasculated and this thing people think is the Patriot Act has
> > pretty much destroyed the Bill of Rights.
>
> The president's Article II powers trumps almost everything else. In times of
> war, interception of enemy and potential enemy communications is common
> sense.
>
> > Now, besides what this
> > Intel guy says that I think is, as the Brits would say, Spot On,
> > there is also the issue of some number, perhaps into the millions,
> > of ordinary U.S. Postal Service mail being opened by the bully boys
> > and girls.
>
> No first class mail has ever been opened without a warrant.
>
> > And, I believe it is in 2009 that new Federal
> > requirements to state-issued driver's licenses to facilitate
> > central tracking takes effect.
>
> It's not to facilitate centralized tracking, although that is certainly one
> of its features. The secure driver's license act is designed to make sure
> terrorist don't get valid identification. Several of the 9-11 highjackers
> held seemingly-valid state-issued drivers' licenses.
>
> > it is only a VERY small step before all of us law abiding
> > citizens of this great country, the United States of America, will
> > be required to carry "papers" and travel authorizations reminiscent
> > of those required of French citizens during the Nazi occupation of
> > France for nearly 5 years.
>
> No, you can travel anywhere you like. You just can't do it on an airplane or
> by driving a car (for now).
>
>
>
>
>
> I'll end this rant
> > by observing that if any of what I think is going on is at all what
> > is really going on, the Intel prediction is correct, and the horror
> > of civil libertarians everywhere is well-founded then it may well
> > come to pass that the Feds break down the door to our homes, arrest
> > us, and confiscate our PCs because they've been monitoring our E-
> > mails, Usenet posts, and web sites/hits and determined that we are
> > some perverted terrorist planning an attack.
>
> The fix is simple: don't be a perverted terrorist planning an attack. Follow
> that rule and you should be okay. If you ARE a perverted terrorist planning
> an attack, we'll get you. Why do you think almost no attacks have taken
> place since 9-11?

Er, when exactly was war declared, & against whom??

 

[HEMI-Powered]

baynole2@yahoo.com added these comments in the current
discussion du jour ...

>> The fix is simple: don't be a perverted terrorist planning an
>> attack. Follow that rule and you should be okay. If you ARE a
>> perverted terrorist planning an attack, we'll get you. Why do
>> you think almost no attacks have taken place since 9-11?
>
> Er, when exactly was war declared, & against whom??
>
Good point! BTW, can anyone cite an example where the United
States has actually declared war on a sovereign nation after
WWII? I cannot. Euphemisms abound, though, including Korea's
"police action" and Viet Nam's "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution." But,
at least for the major conflicts the sitting president did go to
Congress for a war powers authorization then later a supplemental
budget request. In the case of the 1991 Gulf War Operation Desert
Storm and the 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom at least we were
fighting an organized armed force that wore uniforms and acted as
one would expect an army or air force to act. But, since Saddan
was kicked out just 3 weeks later, the "war" has become both more
religious and sectarian than ordinary "military" as well as
regional civil war. If we wanted to declare, or re-declare war in
Iraq, against whom would the president ask Congress to declare
against? I think that absent a post-Cold War conflict with Russia
or perhaps China, and maybe either North Korea or Iran,
traditional Constitutional requires for a president to ask for a
declaration of war seem to have gone the way of the dodo bird.

--
HP, aka Jerry

 

[Rich]

> The Government claim such things as being to "Protect" you (or somebody)
> from some hypothetical enemy. You "Know" that you are not a criminal /
> thief / bad guy and you believe that the Government will only go after the
> bad guys, so it is easier just to do nothing about it. Fact is though that
> although "You" know you are not the bad guy, nobody else knows that, so
> you are just as much a suspect as anybody else. Thus to believe such
> legislation only affects bad guys (Pirates / terrorists / criminals etc)
> is a complete fallacy.

where does common sense enter into the equation?
want another common fallacy?
Privacy is about protection of my privacy
Privacy are mostly about blindfolding the 'cops'

here is another nugget to THINK on

follow the liberal line of reasoning, NOBODY DO ANYTHING and wait for your
stuff to all go wrong while ..
at the same time yammer why all the other guys stuff is going wrong and then
make sure you are the first on your feet to demand an answer to "WHY DID'NT
SOMEONE DO SOMETHING?"


> Most of the proponents of the Iraq war (Which is supposedly to protect us
> from terrorists) are "Armchair Generals" who were never in any danger from
> terrorists anyway (Especially terrorists from Iraq) but it was much
> "Easier" to go along with it than to think about it

Speaking of armchair generals
how about those 'supposedly' against the war because its immoral .. heh
how about those 'supposedly' against the war because its illegal .. heh
How about the Democrat 'leadership' in congress .. the ultimate definition
of "ARMCHAIR"

> In reality the Government can't protect you from anything, but it makes
> their job of pretending to do so easier if the public simply complies...

oh, reality based are we? Of course a government can protect you .. that's
why there is a military ...
centers for disease control .. air traffic control regs .. et al.
What in your estimation would have been the outcome of WWII had there been
no government?

Sorry Charlie,
looks as if the more you THINK about it, the sillier you become
might want to stop pretending and start .... what? real THINKING


You seem to have grazed in the pasture of liberal zymology for quite awhile.
You might reTHINK that and THINK about why liberalism only constructs
SYMBOLS?
When the latest and greatest goes haywire? You're out only an ethereal
SYMBOL.
No biggie, just begin constructing the latest and greatest SYMBOL. No sweat
there.

Rich,

 

[Charlie Tame]

Rich wrote:
>
>> The Government claim such things as being to "Protect" you (or somebody)
>> from some hypothetical enemy. You "Know" that you are not a criminal /
>> thief / bad guy and you believe that the Government will only go after
>> the bad guys, so it is easier just to do nothing about it. Fact is
>> though that although "You" know you are not the bad guy, nobody else
>> knows that, so you are just as much a suspect as anybody else. Thus to
>> believe such legislation only affects bad guys (Pirates / terrorists /
>> criminals etc) is a complete fallacy.
>
> where does common sense enter into the equation?
> want another common fallacy?
> Privacy is about protection of my privacy
> Privacy are mostly about blindfolding the 'cops'
>
> here is another nugget to THINK on
>
> follow the liberal line of reasoning, NOBODY DO ANYTHING and wait for
> your stuff to all go wrong while ..
> at the same time yammer why all the other guys stuff is going wrong and
> then make sure you are the first on your feet to demand an answer to
> "WHY DID'NT SOMEONE DO SOMETHING?"
>
>
>> Most of the proponents of the Iraq war (Which is supposedly to protect
>> us from terrorists) are "Armchair Generals" who were never in any
>> danger from terrorists anyway (Especially terrorists from Iraq) but it
>> was much "Easier" to go along with it than to think about it
>
> Speaking of armchair generals
> how about those 'supposedly' against the war because its immoral .. heh
> how about those 'supposedly' against the war because its illegal .. heh
> How about the Democrat 'leadership' in congress .. the ultimate
> definition of "ARMCHAIR"
>
>> In reality the Government can't protect you from anything, but it
>> makes their job of pretending to do so easier if the public simply
>> complies...
>
> oh, reality based are we? Of course a government can protect you ..
> that's why there is a military ...
> centers for disease control .. air traffic control regs .. et al.
> What in your estimation would have been the outcome of WWII had there
> been no government?
>
> Sorry Charlie,
> looks as if the more you THINK about it, the sillier you become
> might want to stop pretending and start .... what? real THINKING
>
>
> You seem to have grazed in the pasture of liberal zymology for quite
> awhile.
> You might reTHINK that and THINK about why liberalism only constructs
> SYMBOLS?
> When the latest and greatest goes haywire? You're out only an ethereal
> SYMBOL.
> No biggie, just begin constructing the latest and greatest SYMBOL. No
> sweat there.
>
> Rich,
>
>


You have no concept of the word reality at all, you only think / pretend
you do. You probably need a break from Limbaugh, because you constantly
confuse the words "Liberal" and "Logical".

So tell me, how is your fuhrer Bush going to protect the nation from
earthquakes, or how about hurricanes, you still living in a trailer and
loving it obviously - or maybe the folks in New Orleans were a bit too
"Liberal" and deserved what they got eh?

The reality is that no Government or anybody else can guarantee your
safety, but they can pretty much guarantee your vote by fooling you into
thinking they can, and it obviously works on a great many people of
which you are an almost perfect example.

Typically you equate privacy with criminal activity, you stated so
clearly enough, you are typical of the idiots who believe they have
nothing to be concerned about when Governments become more and more
intrusive.

http://www.telisphere.com/~cearley/sean/camps/first.html

 

[Rich]

> You have no concept of the word reality at all, you only think / pretend
> you do. You probably need a break from Limbaugh, because you constantly
> confuse the words "Liberal" and "Logical".

Well ... If you say so ...Sounds like you have a frim grasp on reality there
)


> So tell me, how is your fuhrer Bush going to protect the nation from
> earthquakes, or how about hurricanes, you still living in a trailer and
> loving it obviously - or maybe the folks in New Orleans were a bit too
> "Liberal" and deserved what they got eh?

you've got a cornacopia overflowing with sterotypes there .. such bounty )

New Orleans got what the democrat state of Louisana gave them ...
The city of New Orleans got what the democrat city government prepared them
for ...
blaming the weather on your political foes is reaching for straws .. isn't
it?


> The reality is that no Government or anybody else can guarantee your
> safety, but they can pretty much guarantee your vote by fooling you into
> thinking they can, and it obviously works on a great many people of which
> you are an almost perfect example.

here comes reality again .. now why is it liberals try to remove any and
all vestiages of risk from 'society'?
with every more intrusive laws .. what are they trying to guarantee? .. then
why gun control?

and .. who? fooled you into thinking the way you do? )

You sure seem to know a lot about me how did you come by this ? .. heh )

> Typically you equate privacy with criminal activity, you stated so clearly
> enough, you are typical of the idiots who believe they have nothing to be
> concerned about when Governments become more and more intrusive.

heh .. if you say so .. oh brother ...
liberals intrude into our lives ... no smoking .. no guns .. more taxes ..
more government ... and to do what with?
make laws that do what?

you have a wonderful way of arguing in a circle and sneaking up on your self
and becoming your own worst enemy )

kinda neat, hard keepting track of all your fibs .. isn't it?


Rich