Ahead of Patriot Act vote, some tea-party lawmakers express reservations

[Brett85]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/02/ahead-of-patriot-act-vote-some.html

[wormyguy]

Why on Earth is Rand (and Lee and Chaffetz, for that matter) not flat-out saying he'll vote against it?

[tangent4ronpaul]

Kucinich: The Tea Party’s First Test
Will Tea Party Members Defend the Constitution or Capitulate on PATRIOT Act Extension?



Congressman Kucinich 111th



Washington, Feb 7 -
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), a steadfast defender of civil liberties, today released the following statement in advance of an expected vote to extend certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act:

“The House may vote tomorrow to extend three provisions of the PATRIOT Act and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act that allow the government to conduct domestic surveillance of Americans.

“The 112th Congress began with a historic reading of the U.S. Constitution. Will anyone subscribe to the First and Fourth Amendments tomorrow when the PATRIOT Act is up for a vote? I am hopeful that members of the Tea Party who came to Congress to defend the Constitution will join me in challenging the reauthorization.

“It is clear that more than eight years after the passage of the PATRIOT Act, Congress has failed to do its job: act as a co-equal branch of government exercising checks and balances over Presidential power. Who will and protect the American people from infringements on their most basic constitutional rights if Congress continues to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act?

“The passage of the PATRIOT Act in 2001 constituted an unprecedented expansion of executive power and placed basic civil liberties at grave risk. Provisions scheduled for extension, such as Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, allow the Federal Bureau of Investigation to order any person or business to turn over “any tangible things” with vague reason.

“Orders executed under this provision constitute a serious violation of First and Fourth Amendment rights by allowing the government to demand access to records often associated with the exercise of First Amendment rights, such as library or medical records.

“As Members of Congress, we are obligated to protect the rights and civil liberties afforded to us by the Constitution and to exercise our oversight powers fully. Despite years of documentation evidencing abuse of these provisions by the Inspector General of the Department of Justice, they may extended without any meaningful debate or opportunity to implement common-sense reforms to ensure that the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans are fully protected. Our failure to do so makes Congress complicit in these violations of basic constitutional rights.

###

[Brett85]

Why on Earth is Rand (and Lee and Chaffetz, for that matter) not flat-out saying he'll vote against it?

That's what I was wondering as well. Maybe Rand is going to propose a bill that reforms it.

[specsaregood]

Why on Earth is Rand (and Lee and Chaffetz, for that matter) not flat-out saying he'll vote against it?

Because it sounds like he wants to give them the opportunity to reform it....and when they don't, vote against it.


Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, who highlighted his opposition to the law during his upstart 2010 Senate campaign, signaled Monday that he may vote ultimately vote against an extension when the measure comes up in the Senate, likely later this month.

"I've had a lot of reservations about the Patriot Act," Paul said when asked whether he's leaning toward voting for an extension. "We're reviewing it and we're going over it, and we will have something out probably in the next couple of days," he added. "We won't be shy about it when it comes out."


Once again, this makes it appear as if Rand is offering reasonable solutions and the other people are being the unreasonable ones.

[wormyguy]

"Reform?" If it's bad, get rid of it. "Compromise" that extends statism is no compromise at all. I support the Pauls because I'm under the impression they don't compromise or cave on their principles. I'd be fine if Rand introduced a less-bad version of the PATRIOT Act extension, but said he'd vote against either one, but saying he'll vote for any version of that terrible law is inexcusable.

[Brett85]

"Reform?" If it's bad, get rid of it. "Compromise" that extends statism is no compromise at all. I support the Pauls because I'm under the impression they don't compromise or cave on their principles. I'd be fine if Rand introduced a less-bad version of the PATRIOT Act extension, but said he'd vote against either one, but saying he'll vote for any version of that terrible law is inexcusable.

What if there were significant reforms and they changed the title of the law?

[wormyguy]

What if there were significant reforms and they changed the title of the law?

I doubt there's anything in that law worth preserving. I could care less about the title.

[jmdrake]

"Reform?" If it's bad, get rid of it. "Compromise" that extends statism is no compromise at all. I support the Pauls because I'm under the impression they don't compromise or cave on their principles. I'd be fine if Rand introduced a less-bad version of the PATRIOT Act extension, but said he'd vote against either one, but saying he'll vote for any version of that terrible law is inexcusable.

My understanding is that the Patriot Act originally had the following sections.

Title 1 - Established the Department of Homeland Security
Title 2 - Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection reforms
Title 3 - Support of science and technology research
Title 4 - Border protection and transportation security reforms
Title 5 - Reforms to emergency preparedness and response systems
Title 6 - Management reform of federal law-enforcement agencies
Title 7 - Reforms coordination between federal and non-federal agencies
Title 9 - Establishes a council consisting of elected and congressionally appointed officials to oversee all aspects of homeland security
Title 10 - Sets information security standards for US government agencies
Title 11 - Placed the ATF under the authority of the US Department of Justice
Title 14 - Allows armed airline pilots


If Rand votes for a re-authorization that only includes title 14 I'm cool with that.

[Brett85]

My understanding is that the Patriot Act originally had the following sections.

Title 1 - Established the Department of Homeland Security
Title 2 - Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection reforms
Title 3 - Support of science and technology research
Title 4 - Border protection and transportation security reforms
Title 5 - Reforms to emergency preparedness and response systems
Title 6 - Management reform of federal law-enforcement agencies
Title 7 - Reforms coordination between federal and non-federal agencies
Title 9 - Establishes a council consisting of elected and congressionally appointed officials to oversee all aspects of homeland security
Title 10 - Sets information security standards for US government agencies
Title 11 - Placed the ATF under the authority of the US Department of Justice
Title 14 - Allows armed airline pilots


If Rand votes for a re-authorization that only includes title 14 I'm cool with that.

I think I would support Title 4 as well.

[jmdrake]

I think I would support Title 4 as well.

I thought about that. But then thought "That might include this TSA screening crap" or some type of electronic tracking for cars. Title 14 is the only one I can give my "full faith and credit" to without reading it.