Rand apparently killed an attempt last night to push Patriot Act thru Senate fast track

[sailingaway]

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=40759


Rand takes a stand

Posted by Tim Shoemaker on 02/15/11 12:04 PM

Last night, aside from the House passing their 10 month extension of the "PATRIOT" Act, the Senate attempted to sneak through a 3 year extension by unanimous consent.

Thankfully for those of us fighting the renewal, Senator Rand Paul objected, meaning the Senate will have to go through the entire procedure for passing this bill.

This morning he wrote a "Dear Colleague" letter to voice his reasons for why he objected and why other senators ought to reconsider their current positions as rubberstamps for Executive power.

Take a moment to read the letter, as Rand "call[s] upon each of my Senate colleagues to seriously consider whether the time has come to re-evaluate many-if not all-provisions of the PATRIOT Act. Our oath to uphold the Constitution demands it."



I posted this in Rand's forum too so if anyone doesn't think it deserves to be posted again in here, they can remove it.

Here's the one from there (but this one is already longer) http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?279673-Rand-Takes-a-Stand-Patriot-Act

[Cowlesy]

Excellent.

I bet a freshman senator putting the kai-bosh on a vote like that pisses off a lot of the old bulls.

[sailingaway]

Excellent.

I bet a freshman senator putting the kai-bosh on a vote like that pisses off a lot of the old bulls.
:D

[Yieu]

Good to know, I hope he can end this rights-violating madness known as the "Patriot" Act.

[TruckinMike]

Excellent.

I bet a freshman senator putting the kai-bosh on a vote like that pisses off a lot of the old bulls.

There comes a day in every pasture that the old bulls get their asses kicked. That day has finally come!

[itshappening]

No more unanimous consent as long as Rand Paul and Mike Lee are around

I hope they keep this up

NO MORE BUSINESS AS USUAL !!!

RAND PAUL !!

[hrdman2luv]

My congressman,(R) Jeb Hensarling (5th district Texas) got a pretty long email from me (and voice mail) about his vote for the Patriot Act. I wished he had the nads of a real conservative.

[Matt Collins]

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x93/sonicspikesalbum/Campaign%20VI/Toldja.jpg

[ItsTime]

Rand-blocked

[Sola_Fide]

Rand-blocked

Hehehehe...I like that one:)

[georgiaboy]

randy

[Bern]

Thank you Senator Paul.

[WorldonaString]

Grrrreat news! Sharing this with all of my liberal peers.

[sailingaway]

rand-blocked


+1!

[Aratus]

rand paul just did something barry goldwater would have grandly done in his prime.

this is the critical difference between rand paul and trey grayson and/or jack conway...

[sailingaway]

rand paul just did something barry goldwater would have grandly done in his prime.

this is the critical difference between rand paul and trey grayson and/or jack conway...

Or any other Senator. Even Feingold didn't vote against it last time it was extended.

[Matt Collins]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk13F88p5ME

[jtstellar]

more balls than obama could ever hope for

[Matt Collins]

Every dollar spent on his campaign, every hour spent laboring away to get him elected was worth it, just for this.

[libertybrewcity]

I wish I knew the rules of the senate better so I could understand how one senator could block an entire piece of legislation.

[low preference guy]

I posted this in Rand's forum too so if anyone doesn't think it deserves to be posted again in here, they can remove it.

Sometimes posting in two different forums creates two different discussions, and people might miss a lot of interesting things if they read only one of the forums.

To avoid that problem here is my suggestion: Create a thread in one forum, and when you create a thread in another forum, just link to the thread in the first forum.

[sailingaway]

Sometimes posting in two different forums creates two different discussions, and people might miss a lot of interesting things if they read only one of the forums.

To avoid that problem here is my suggestion: Create a thread in one forum, and when you create a thread in another forum, just link to the thread in the first forum.

Good idea, in the future I will. Meanwhile I'll link it in the OP. I just thought people who don't always go to Rand's forum would be interested.

[teacherone]

was he the sole nay note?

amazing, amazing

[jclay2]

Keep on keeping on! + rep for Senator Paul.

[Matt Collins]

I wish I knew the rules of the senate better so I could understand how one senator could block an entire piece of legislation.
Ugh, I don't think anyone knows the draconian rules of the Senate.

[sailingaway]

I wish I knew the rules of the senate better so I could understand how one senator could block an entire piece of legislation.

It is only temporary and they can overcome it with a vote of 60 Senators so in the long run it takes 40 Senators to block it. However, it stops it from rushing through without their constituents even being able to express their disgust.

So let's make use of this time to contact our Senators and Reps and make sure they have seen Rand's excellent letter.

[hazek]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk13F88p5ME


Hey :collins:, you're doing us a great disservice when you spread an alternate video. I really wish we'd get our shit together and didn't make so many copies on youtube because it greatly diminishes the chances of a video going viral:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmgHf32tMHY

[PermanentSleep]

After watching so closely and caring so much about the political situation in our country for nearly his entire life, I'd say Rand probably laughs his ass off for hours on end every time he "pisses off" the old bulls!

Aqua Buddah defending Liberty yet again!

[Brian4Liberty]

Excellent work Rand! We need to pass this on to all politicians who say that the problems in the Patriot Act are already fixed, or that they want specific examples...


Press Release of Senator Paul

Senator Rand Paul’s Letter of Opposition to the Patriot Act

Contact: Gary Howard: 202-224-4343
Tuesday, February 15, 2011

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Rand Paul (Ky.) released the following Dear Colleague letter to his fellow Senators this morning regarding the renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act.





Dear Colleague:

James Otis argued against general warrants and writs of assistance that were issued by British soldiers without judicial review and that did not name the subject or items to be searched.

He condemned these general warrants as “the worst instrument[s] of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever w[ere] found in an English law book.” Otis objected to these writs of assistance because they “placed the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer.” The Fourth Amendment was intended to guarantee that only judges—not soldiers or policemen—would issue warrants. Otis’ battle against warrantless searches led to our Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable government intrusion.

My main objection to the PATRIOT Act is that searches that should require a judge’s warrant are performed with a letter from an FBI agent—a National Security Letter (“NSL”).

I object to these warrantless searches being performed on United States citizens. I object to the 200,000 NSL searches that have been performed without a judge’s warrant.

I object to over 2 million searches of bank records, called Suspicious Activity Reports, performed on U.S. citizens without a judge’s warrant.

As February 28th approaches, with three provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act set to expire, it is time to re-consider this question: Do the many provisions of this bill, which were enacted in such haste after 9/11, have an actual basis in our Constitution, and are they even necessary to achieve valid law-enforcement goals?

The USA PATRIOT Act, passed in the wake of the worst act of terrorism in U.S. history, is no doubt well-intentioned. However, rather than examine what went wrong, and fix the problems, Congress instead hastily passed a long-standing wish list of power grabs like warrantless searches and roving wiretaps. The government greatly expanded its own power, ignoring obvious answers in favor of the permanent expansion of a police state.

It is not acceptable to willfully ignore the most basic provisions of our Constitution—in this case—the Fourth and First Amendments—in the name of “security.”

For example, one of the three provisions set to expire on February 28th—the “library provision,” section 215 of the PATRIOT Act—allows the government to obtain records from a person or entity by making only the minimal showing of “relevance” to an international terrorism or espionage investigation. This provision also imposes a year-long nondisclosure, or “gag” order. “Relevance” is a far cry from the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of probable cause. Likewise, the “roving wiretap” provision, section 206 of the PATRIOT Act, which is also scheduled to expire on the 28th, does not comply with the Fourth Amendment. This provision makes possible “John Doe roving wiretaps,” which do not require the government to name the target of the wiretap, nor to identify the specific place or facility to be monitored. This bears an uncanny resemblance to the Writs of Assistance fought against by Otis and the American colonists.

Other provisions of the PATRIOT Act previously made permanent and not scheduled to expire present even greater concerns. These include the use and abuse by the FBI of so-called National Security Letters. These secret demand letters, which allow the government to obtain financial records and other sensitive information held by Internet Service Providers, banks, credit companies, and telephone carriers—all without appropriate judicial oversight—also impose a gag order on recipients.



NSL abuse has been and likely continues to be rampant. The widely-circulated 2007 report issued by the Inspector General from the Department of Justice documents “widespread and serious misuse of the FBI’s national security letter authorities. In many instances, the FBI’s misuse of national security letters violated NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, or the FBI’s own internal policies.” Another audit released in 2008 revealed similar abuses, including the fact that the FBI had issued inappropriate “blanket NSLs” that did not comply with FBI policy, and which allowed the FBI to obtain data on 3,860 telephone numbers by issuing only eleven “blanket NSLs.” The 2008 audit also confirmed that the FBI increasingly used NSLs to seek information on U.S. citizens. From 2003 to 2006, almost 200,000 NSL requests were issued. In 2006 alone, almost 60% of the 49,425 requests were issued specifically for investigations of U.S. citizens or legal aliens.



In addition, First Amendment advocates should be concerned about an especially troubling aspect of the 2008 audit, which documented a situation in which the FBI applied to the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to obtain a section 215 order. The Court denied the order on First Amendment grounds. Not to be deterred, the FBI simply used an NSL to obtain the same information.

A recent report released by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”) entitled, “Patterns of Misconduct: FBI Intelligence Violations from 2001-2008,” documents further NSL abuse. EFF estimates that, based on the proportion of violations reported to the Intelligence Oversight Board and the FBI’s own statements regarding NSL violations, the actual number of violations that may have occurred since 2001 could approach 40,000 violations of law, Executive Order, and other regulations.

Yet another troublesome (and now permanent) provision of the PATRIOT Act is the expansion of Suspicious Activity Reports. Sections 356 and 359 expanded the types of financial institutions required to file reports under the Bank Secrecy Act. The personal and account information required by the reports is turned over to the Treasury Department and the FBI. In 2000, there were only 163,184 reports filed. By 2007, this had increased to 1,250,439. Again, as with NSLs, there is a complete lack of judicial oversight for SARs.

Finally, I wish to remind my colleagues that one of the many ironies of the rush to advance the PATRIOT Act following 9/11 is the well-documented fact that FBI incompetence caused the failure to search the computer of the alleged 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui. As FBI agent Coleen Rowley stated, “the FBI headquarters supervisory special agent handling the Moussaoui case ‘seemed to have been consistently almost deliberately thwarting the Minneapolis FBI agents’ efforts” to meet the FISA standard for a search warrant, and therefore no request was ever made for a warrant. Why, then, was the FBI rewarded with such expansive new powers in the aftermath of this institutional failure?

In the words of former Senator Russ Feingold, the only “no” vote against the original version of the PATRIOT Act,

“[T]here is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country that allowed the police to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to hold people in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, then the government would no doubt discover and arrest more terrorists. But that probably would not be a country in which we would want to live. And that would not be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In short, that would not be America.”

I call upon each of my Senate colleagues to seriously consider whether the time has come to re-evaluate many—if not all—provisions of the PATRIOT Act. Our oath to uphold the Constitution demands it.



Sincerely,

Rand Paul, M.D.
United States Senator

[ronaldo23]

so Mike Lee gave consent to pass it?

[Matt Collins]

Hey :collins:, you're doing us a great disservice when you spread an alternate video. I really wish we'd get our shit together and didn't make so many copies on youtube because it greatly diminishes the chances of a video going viral:I took mine from the Senator Rand Paul YouTube Channel

[hazek]

I took mine from the Senator Rand Paul YouTube Channel

GAH! May bad then.

Well it's still a problem. Not with just this video but will all of our videos. And it things this problem really really hurts us.

[Sola_Fide]

so Mike Lee gave consent to pass it?

Hmmmm.

[sailingaway]

Hmmmm.

If I understand the process, if one person objects it can't move to a vote on unanimous consent, and has to go through process.

I think Mike may be the one to object on the debt ceiling (just a hunch).

But I don't actually know Mike's views on this and will be very interested to see how he votes.

[ronaldo23]

If I understand the process, if one person objects it can't move to a vote on unanimous consent, and has to go through process.

I think Mike may be the one to object on the debt ceiling (just a hunch).

But I don't actually know Mike's views on this and will be very interested to see how he votes.

After watching him give a speech to the federalist society, I'd be utterly shocked and disapointed if Lee votes for the patriot act. He seems to appreciate and understand the constitution probably as well as any politician in D.C.

[Brian4Liberty]

so Mike Lee gave consent to pass it?

It only takes one Senator to object:

unanimous consent - A Senator may request unanimous consent on the floor to set aside a specified rule of procedure so as to expedite proceedings. If no Senator objects, the Senate permits the action, but if any one Senator objects, the request is rejected. Unanimous consent requests with only immediate effects are routinely granted, but ones affecting the floor schedule, the conditions of considering a bill or other business, or the rights of other Senators, are normally not offered, or a floor leader will object to it, until all Senators concerned have had an opportunity to inform the leaders that they find it acceptable.

[Sola_Fide]

If I understand the process, if one person objects it can't move to a vote on unanimous consent, and has to go through process.

I think Mike may be the one to object on the debt ceiling (just a hunch).

But I don't actually know Mike's views on this and will be very interested to see how he votes.

Hmmm. Okay.

[archangel689]

Unanimous consent? Rand was the only one to object? That's appalling.


http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=40759



I posted this in Rand's forum too so if anyone doesn't think it deserves to be posted again in here, they can remove it.

Here's the one from there (but this one is already longer) http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?279673-Rand-Takes-a-Stand-Patriot-Act

[archangel689]

Anyone familiar with parliamentary law should know this. If you people know nothing of Robert's Rules of Order, you should get it and read it, although it's not what is used in the senate (they have their own retarded rules of order).


It only takes one Senator to object:

unanimous consent - A Senator may request unanimous consent on the floor to set aside a specified rule of procedure so as to expedite proceedings. If no Senator objects, the Senate permits the action, but if any one Senator objects, the request is rejected. Unanimous consent requests with only immediate effects are routinely granted, but ones affecting the floor schedule, the conditions of considering a bill or other business, or the rights of other Senators, are normally not offered, or a floor leader will object to it, until all Senators concerned have had an opportunity to inform the leaders that they find it acceptable.

[Brett85]

Unanimous consent? Rand was the only one to object? That's appalling.

Not necessarily. It just means that he was the first to object. After he objected there wasn't any need for anybody else to.

[archangel689]

Not necessarily. It just means that he was the first to object. After he objected there wasn't any need for anybody else to.

Ah, the first one on the gun...Alert and jumping at the chairman... I like it.

[Deborah K]

This gives me renewed hope.

[Sola_Fide]

Not necessarily. It just means that he was the first to object. After he objected there wasn't any need for anybody else to.

Thanks for the clarification.

Man, I really need to catch up on the rules of order and stuff like that.:(

[Stary Hickory]

Excellent.

I bet a freshman senator putting the kai-bosh on a vote like that pisses off a lot of the old bulls.

I really don't care its time we sent a lot of the old bulls out to pasture. This legislation is unlawful and a violation of the Constitutional rights of the people. I would like to see people start going to prison for passing this kind of legislation.....I was more tolerant BEFORE when it was done hastily amidst Bush's perpetual crisis mode because of 9/11....now there is absolutely no excuse.

[unklejman]

Is there any source for this other than C4L? I want to send it to liberal friends, but would like a source they would accept better.

[Stary Hickory]

Seems to me if most Dems are against it.....then the Dems in the Senate should stop this....or Obama would....but he has called for it's extension. Any benefit, however minuscule and small it might have been for having Obama as POTUS has all but disappeared. There is no good side to this guy....no silver lining. It's all just plain awful. I had a low opinion of Bush but Obama eclipsed him very fast.

[squarepusher]

Rand-blocked

Rand Blocked!

[Travlyr]

Very cool!

[jct74]

Sometimes posting in two different forums creates two different discussions, and people might miss a lot of interesting things if they read only one of the forums.

Yeah, I noticed there has been a lot of this lately. I think its better to avoid fragmenting of information/conversation and generally try to keep stuff where people expect it to be. It is also good to reduce the clutter of extra threads, especially when the boards are very busy like they have been the past week.



Good idea, in the future I will. Meanwhile I'll link it in the OP. I just thought people who don't always go to Rand's forum would be interested.

Or you could ask that a thread be promoted to the front page. But I don't think there is much reason to worry about people missing the information if it gets posted in the Rand Paul forum. I would imagine that nearly everyone registered uses the "New Posts" button instead of manually checking each forum, or for the people not registered a lot of them still check the Rand Paul forum anyways.

[Agorism]

I thought it already passed. heh

[AFPVet]

We have a veteran Congressman and a freshman Senator :) We just need more....

[sailingaway]

We have a veteran Congressman and a freshman Senator :) We just need more....

truth...

[dude58677]

Now let's see what he can do with appropiation bills.:D

[wormyguy]

I accidentally read this as "Rand apparently killed in attempt last night to push Patriot Act thru Senate fast track."

A big relief!