The Shadow of FISA

I know I’m a tad bit late with this article on the FISA bill, but later is better than never…I hope.

You know, I was under the impression that the Democrats were elected to Congress to keep Bush in check. Of course, you can’t count on Democrats to do anything right. Before you all call me a conservative pig, I believe the same about the Republicans. I keep saying that both parties have a lot more in common than they’re willing to admit. What has the Democratic majority done to stop all this non-sense going on at the Capitol? Nothing at all.

It doesn’t matter if you vote for Barrack Obama or John McCain, nothing is going to change. They too are more alike than they’re willing to admit. Barrack had one thing going for him from my point of view; he was against the FISA Bill. Yet, when the day came for him to filibuster the bill or vote against it like he said he would, what did he do? He voted in favor of it. McCain has been for the bill all along, so of course he supported it, though he didn’t attend the session to cast his vote. Am I the only one that’s noticing how Obama seems to changing opinions a lot lately, aligning them more with the opinions of McCain?

So here we are, living in what could possibly be one of the darkest days in American history. They passed the FISA Bill. The government is free to spy on who ever they choose, not just internationally, but DOMESTICALLY. They’re free to not only check on people who they think are a threat to national security, but they can spy on you. They might use the power to find out of you’re downloading songs illegally. Better think twice next time you open Kazaa or click on that torrent file. A joint FBI, CIA, NSA, and ATF taskforce might be waiting around the corner to bust your door down. That may be an exaggeration now, but they way things are going, I wouldn’t be surprised if that happens in the near future.

Warrants don’t have to be issued, there is no government oversight, and no one can be held liable. The bill is also retroactive, so all those cases that in the system right now against phone companies and the government are going to be dismissed. What good can possibly come out of this bill?

The unconstitutionality of the laws being passed on the Hill amazes me. I don’t feel any safer than I did before 9/11. Everyone knows that we knew something was going to happen, but the lack of inter-agency collaboration as well as other factors prevented us from preventing the attacks. We don’t have to spying on our citizens to be safe.

What amazes me even more is the lack of concern by the people. There’s a quote that I throw around a lot and it’s become quite popular recently:

“Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” -- Benjamin Franklin

Americans gave up their lives in 1776 to re-gain freedoms that the English were infringing upon. The Forefathers would balk at the idea of giving up privacy or any other right for safety. Yet, here we stand…I should say sit, allowing the government to strip away our liberties, and they’re doing so in the name safety. Look back through history and you’ll find that dictatorships are created when leaders take advantage of the fears of the people.

The constitution was created to prevent bills like FISA from being passed. It was created to protect the people and restrict government. Yet, government is growing faster than it ever has, and the rights of the people are slowly being chiseled away. We should be up in arms over what’s going on in Washington. It may not seem like that big of deal, but it is, and it will only get worse unless we do something to stop it. My only hope is that the law will overturned by the Supreme Court. If that does happen…the light at the end of tunnel may not be coming for a long time.

SCOTUS Upholds 2nd Amendment Rights

Today, the Supreme Court struck down the 37 year old D.C. ban on handguns. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the court and said that the Constitution does not provide for the absolute ban of hand guns. The case was brought forward when Dick Heller, who is an armed security officer, filed suit after his application to keep a handgun in his home and was rejected. That's right, he wanted to keep the gun in his home for personal protection, but the city wouldn't allow it.

The 2nd amendment reads: 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. It is debated whether this amendment is in affect today because we have no need for militia since we have an army. However, the first part of the amendment gives a reason, but, as Justice Scalia points out in the courts opinion, does not limit the 2nd part or in law terms, the operative clause. Until a new amendment is passed to change the 2nd Amendment, the right of the citizens to bear arms cannot be infringed upon.

If you were to look through history, the first thing a government does before it become a dictatorship or oppresses its people is to take away the right to own a weapon and right to defend one’s self. This is why the forefathers wrote this into the Bill of Rights. It was a matter of great importance to them, evidenced by the fact that it’s the 2nd amendment, not the 10th, 11th, or 12th. It’s hard to comprehend tyranny in the United States; and it’s admittedly not likely happen anytime soon. However, it is not beyond the realm of possibility.

That being said, I don’t believe in unrestricted gun rights. There is no such thing as a limitless right. You have the right to free speech, but you cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre. You have the right to practice religion freely, but if your religion involves polygamy or sacrifice, you cannot lawfully practice those elements of that religion. The same stands here, I don’t believe the felons or the mentally incapacitated should be allowed to own a firearm because that would be an endangerment to the public. However, I am a law abiding citizen and a gun owner. If someone were to break into my house, I would hope that I would be able to defend my self, my family, and my property from harm.

A blanket law like the D.C. handgun ban in unconstitutional in that it stops everyone, including the law abiding, from owning a handgun. Unlike Kennedy v. Louisiana, which was decided yesterday, I fully agree with court and its opinion in this case. It seems that the federal government has been on a streak of trying to strengthen its power. It has been taking power away from the states, thereby the people, as it did yesterday by banning executions of child rapists even when the people of Louisiana supported the law. This landmark judgment is undoubtedly a win for the people.

Supreme Court's Ruling On Child Rape Law is Flawed

by Andrew Ramdeholl

Today, the US Supreme court overturned the Louisiana law permitting the execution of child rapists. (Video Here) The opinion of court, delivered by Justice Kennedy, states that the ruling was made on the basis of the Eighth Amendment. Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined the majority opinion while Justices Robert, Scalia, Souter, and Alito, who are conservative Justices, dissented.

It may be argued as to whether or not the death penalty it self is moral. However, the job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the constitution, not to decide upon what is moral and what is not. That decision belongs to the people through a democratic process. This is a case where the court is substituting its own morals for the morals of the people. The decision of the Supreme Court is unconstitutional. Since the death penalty has been ruled as constitutional, then it should be left up to the states to decide what crimes justify the death penalty.

The court arrived at this decision through deciding that a “national consensus” exists, which was derived through the fact that only 6 states allow the death penalty for child rape cases. However, as Justice Alito points out, state legislatures have had to live under the Coker decision for years. The Coker decision said that it was unconstitutional to use the death penalty in cases that involved the raping of an adult woman. They were afraid that any law allowing the death penalty for child rape would be struck down, like it has here. In this case, the fact most of the nation doesn’t allow the death penalty doesn’t show evidence of a national consensus because the states refuse to face the issue. Besides that fact, in the opinion for Coker decision, the word “adult” was used numerous times to describe the rape victim. This was intentional so that the same decision would not be applied to a case involving child rape.

Let’s change our frame of thought for a moment and face this from a moral stand point. In accordance with this decision, Justice Alito writes that a the criminal cannot be sentenced to death “no matter how young the child, no matter how, many times the child is raped, no matter how many children the perpetrator rapes, no matter how sadistic the crime, no matter how much physical or psychological trauma is inflicted, and no matter how heinous the perpetrator’s prior criminal record may be.” What of that? What if the criminal raped multiple children? Still, the court says that it isn’t enough to justify the death penalty.

If were to read the full description of rape and the serious injuries inflicted upon this girl, I guarantee you would be sick to your stomach. There aren’t a lot of things that disturb me. When I read the description of L.H.’s injuries though, I felt as thought someone has torn out my innards. Were I not at work, there probably would have been tears. The court says that in accordance with the 8th amendment, the punishment must be proportional to the crime. What crime, besides murder, is worse than the rape of a child? In fact, it could be argued the raping is child is just as heinous as murder. Who wouldn’t agree that a child rapist lacks just as much of a moral compass as a murderer? I could say that a murder can have a greater morals than any child rapist.

This decision is one that is flawed. This is a decision where the court is using its own morals as a stand-in for the morals of the national consensus. It erodes the power of the states and more importantly, the power of the people. This decision is unquestionably unconstitutional.