PDA

View Full Version : Can the Federal Government itself be sued?




hypnagogue
07-09-2008, 06:36 PM
Can it be done? Has it been tried? Who could we enlist to help? I ask because the Congress today closed one avenue of redress and inquiry with their Amendments to the FISA Act. Let us look to another. Since we can not hold the Federal Government's accomplices, the Telecom Industry, liable, then let us act directly against the originating perpetrator.

We can not let this stand. Let us brainstorm.

mediahasyou
07-09-2008, 06:38 PM
I believe you would be kicking yourself.

hypnagogue
07-09-2008, 06:41 PM
YES! (http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/35928prs20080709.html) <- The Lawsuit against this law.

We need to get behind this. Who here is involved with the ACLU? Help us get involved!

Note to Self: Google first post second...

CoreyBowen999
07-09-2008, 06:42 PM
Good luck guys. You know they will have the best lawyers ever on your case..

hypnagogue
07-09-2008, 06:48 PM
This can be our next big issue! This whole movement is on the same page here. We all recognize the affront to the Constitution that this is. If we can play a prominent role in overturning this, it would solidify our position in the political landscape. This is what we should be donating our time, energy and whatever wealth we can spare to.

Please, this is our opportunity! The whole nation could be turned against this bill if they were only shown what it means. We can demonstrate to them how the Constitution can protect them TODAY. We'll bring Constitutional Law back into the modern discourse.

constituent
07-09-2008, 06:49 PM
Can it be done? Has it been tried? Who could we enlist to help? I ask because the Congress today closed one avenue of redress and inquiry with their Amendments to the FISA Act. Let us look to another. Since we can not hold the Federal Government's accomplices, the Telecom Industry, liable, then let us act directly against the originating perpetrator.

We can not let this stand. Let us brainstorm.

an easier target might actually be mccain-feingold and deprivation of constitutional rights.

hypnagogue
07-09-2008, 06:55 PM
But McCain-Feingold isn't in the public eye now. The news of the day is the FISA Bill. We should jump on what's happening now, rather than to try to resurrect an older issue. I think the American people would be more receptive to the idea that listening to their international communications without warrants and letting big corporations off the hook for breaking the law is a terrible thing, than that people should be able to give more money to politicians.

I know some of us are not fans of the ACLU. Let us get in touch with them to work out a collaboration. Why shouldn't they create a fund specifically for this issue? There are so many opportunities to bring new people into the movement here.

I'll make a poll.

constituent
07-09-2008, 06:59 PM
But McCain-Feingold isn't in the public eye now. The news of the day is the FISA Bill. We should jump on what's happening now, rather than to try to resurrect an older issue. I think the American people would be more receptive to the idea that listening to their international communications without warrants and letting big corporations off the hook for breaking the law is a terrible thing, than that people should be able to give more money to politicians.

I know some of us are not fans of the ACLU. Let us get in touch with them to work out a collaboration. Why shouldn't they create a fund specifically for this issue? There are so many opportunities to bring new people into the movement here.

I'll make a poll.

this too shall pass. new week new thing next week.

Danke
07-09-2008, 07:00 PM
Can it be done? Has it been tried? Who could we enlist to help? I ask because the Congress today closed one avenue of redress and inquiry with their Amendments to the FISA Act. Let us look to another. Since we can not hold the Federal Government's accomplices, the Telecom Industry, liable, then let us act directly against the originating perpetrator.

We can not let this stand. Let us brainstorm.

I don't think that is how it works.

I believe you need to find a victim of the Telecoms' wire tapping first. Then run it through the courts, all the way up to the Supreme Court if that is what it takes, to show the law is unconstitutional.

hypnagogue
07-09-2008, 07:01 PM
All things pass unless you grab onto them and make a fight of it. It will only pass without event if the people make no issue of it.

@ Danke, See post #3. The ACLU is doing it.

Matt Collins
07-09-2008, 07:11 PM
Can the government be sued?

Well it depends. It's called sovereign immunity (look it up). Essentially the government can only be sued when it allows itself to be sued.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s103.htm

Dr.3D
07-09-2008, 07:27 PM
Can the government be sued?

Well it depends. It's called sovereign immunity (look it up). Essentially the government can only be sued when it allows itself to be sued.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s103.htm

So true, usually, they will stall the case till you either run out of money or if that doesn't work, they will claim they can't be sued.

constituent
07-09-2008, 07:45 PM
Can the government be sued?

Well it depends. It's called sovereign immunity (look it up). Essentially the government can only be sued when it allows itself to be sued.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s103.htm

amazing. i know of cases where i'm from of people who were tazed filed suit against the county for deprivation of "civil rights" and won.

such hypocrisy.

Knightskye
07-09-2008, 07:51 PM
Boumedine v. Bush

That's how the Supreme Court ruled about Habeas Corpus rights for Gitmo detainees.

You have to have a good case, though.

WarDog
07-09-2008, 09:21 PM
oday, elected officials in Washington sold out the Constitution -- again.

Cowed by the Bush administration’s pre-election scare tactics, the Senate passed freedom-stealing FISA legislation undermining your Fourth Amendment rights.

This is not a “compromise,” as some in Congress would have us believe. The only thing they compromised is your freedom. Become an ACLU monthly donor, and stand up for your rights.

The FISA Amendments Act allows for mass, untargeted and warrantless surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States. And to top it off, it hands immunity to telecom companies for their role in domestic spying. This means your phone calls can be tapped and emails read with virtually no proof of threat, and there's no chance to learn how the telecoms invaded your privacy.

It’s outrageous, unconstitutional and un-American. That’s why the ACLU is prepared to challenge this unconstitutional law the moment President Bush signs it.

Help the ACLU protect your privacy. Make a monthly pledge to support the ACLU’s lawsuit challenging the gutting of FISA and all of our other critical work defending the Constitution.

Now is an especially important time for you to act. Not only can you help fund essential work fighting this unconstitutional legislation but your decision to make a monthly pledge can move us a giant step closer to our target of 2,000 new monthly supporters this month. If we reach that goal by July 31st, the ACLU will earn a $100,000 Matching Gift further strengthening our efforts to stand up for freedom as no other organization in America can.

As a Guardian of Liberty, you can join tens of thousands of your fellow citizens in donating a small amount each month to help the ACLU’s critical work in defense of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Donate now to help the ACLU fight for freedom and move closer to our $100,000 Matching Gift goal.

In one fell swoop, Congress has not only legalized the Bush administration’s secret NSA spying program, it has given the government even more power to listen to our phone calls and read our emails than even the Bush administration illegally claimed for itself under its secret program. And, by granting telecoms immunity, it has greatly harmed the chances of ever learning the extent of the administration’s lawless actions.

While politicians lack resolve, the ACLU and its supporters do not. Stand with the ACLU by becoming a monthly supporter of the ACLU today.

In defense of freedom,
Anthony D. Romero
Anthony D. Romero
Executive Director
ACLU

Melissa
07-09-2008, 09:29 PM
I too think this is important and sometimes we have to fight with others even if our agenda is different to win a few battles for Liberty

Truth Warrior
07-09-2008, 10:39 PM
Sure you can, once they grant you permission.

Just imagine suing someone that has the power and authority and can decide and rule on your suit. :D

Their game, their rules. :rolleyes:

hypnagogue
07-10-2008, 03:26 AM
Sure you can, once they grant you permission.

Just imagine suing someone that has the power and authority and can decide and rule on your suit. :D

Their game, their rules. :rolleyes: But what a spectacle it would be. To see the Feds either refuse to deal with the issue, or to put on a blatantly unfair trial would only work to solidify the notion in the minds of the people that this government no longer works for them.

Truth Warrior
07-10-2008, 03:46 AM
But what a spectacle it would be. To see the Feds either refuse to deal with the issue, or to put on a blatantly unfair trial would only work to solidify the notion in the minds of the people that this government no longer works for them.
That's why they'd never grant permission to sue.

Their game, their rules! :p

The decks are all stacked, the wheels are all rigged and the dice are all loaded.:rolleyes:

Play at your own risk!

hypnagogue
07-10-2008, 04:50 PM
bump for more votes :D

Pepsi
07-10-2008, 06:44 PM
President George W. Bush signed a law on Thursday overhauling the rules for eavesdropping on terrorism suspects but immediately met a civil liberties challenge calling it a threat to Americans' privacy

"This law will protect the liberties of our citizens while maintaining the vital flow of intelligence," Bush said at a White House ceremony to mark a rare legislative victory for the president during his last year in office.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit in Manhattan federal court as Bush signed the measure and called for the law to be voided as a violation of constitutional speech and privacy protections.

"Spying on Americans without warrants or judicial approval is an abuse of government power, and that's exactly what this law allows," ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said in announcing the suit.

The action was filed on behalf of human-rights groups, journalists, labor organizations and others who say they fear the law will allow the U.S. government to monitor their activities, including compiling of critical reports on the United States.

Bush quickly signed the bill a day after Congress gave it final approval, with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama dropping earlier opposition to vote for passage. Obama's Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, has supported the bill but was absent for Wednesday's vote.

The bill authorizes U.S. intelligence agencies to eavesdrop without court approval on foreign targets believed to be outside the United States.

The administration says the measure will allow it to swiftly track terrorists. But the suit charges the law permits warrantless surveillance of phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens who may have legal and legitimate reasons for contacting people targeted by government spying.

The bill seeks to minimize such eavesdropping on Americans, but the suit says the safeguards are inadequate.

The law lets government "conduct intrusive surveillance without ever telling a court who it intends to surveil, what phone lines and e-mail addresses it intends to monitor, where its surveillance targets are located, or why it's conducting the surveillance," said ACLU national security director Jameel Jaffer, the lead attorney in the suit.

The most contentious issue in negotiations over the bill was a provision that grants liability protection to telecommunication companies that took part in a warrantless domestic spying program Bush began after the September 11 attacks.

The law shields those firms from billions of dollars in potential damages from privacy lawsuits.

McCain criticized Obama's vote in favor of the law as an inconsistency, and ACLU Legislative Director Caroline Fredrickson called it "very disappointing."

The Democrat's campaign had earlier said he would support efforts to block legislation with a telecommunications immunity provision, but Obama voted for the overall bill Bush signed after casting a losing vote to strip the immunity provision.

"Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise," Obama said on his campaign Web site.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080710/pl_nm/usa_surveillance_dc