PDA

View Full Version : Blum votes no on Freedom Act




Brian4Liberty
06-03-2015, 12:34 PM
Blum votes no on Freedom Act (http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/blum-votes-no-on-freedom-act/article_8fd48ba8-9251-5555-9885-944850cdab69.html)
By Christinia Crippes


WATERLOO - Rep. Rod Blum is among the minority of lawmakers who voted against the USA Freedom Act that amends and extends the Patriot Act.

The bill passed the Senate and was signed by the president Tuesday.

Blum said there were two main provisions that kept him from supporting the bill, though he said he doesn’t see security and freedom as being at odds.

“I’ve always said that I believe we can have our freedom and our liberty and our Fourth Amendment rights protected, and have security at the same time,” Blum said. “A lot of times we’re presented with the false choice of you can have one or the other … and I totally disagree. We can have both.”
...
Blum said he is pleased the legislation ends bulk collection of Americans’ data and instead requires federal agencies to get a warrant before accessing data kept by telecommunications companies.

But he felt two provisions in particular were steps back for Americans’ freedom.

One provision reduces the standard needed to get a warrant, from probable cause to reasonable suspicion. Blum notes “probable cause” is the standard set in the Fourth Amendment.

The other grants “emergency powers” where agencies can forgo a warrant for days as long as one is eventually secured through the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

“So, what it does is it codifies into law -- codifies into law -- lawbreaking,” Blum said. “For the government to go and, for example, search all your records without a warrant, that’s breaking the law. And the Freedom Act says that’s OK, as long as they go back ex post facto and get a FISA court warrant. So I do not like that at all.”
...
http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/blum-votes-no-on-freedom-act/article_8fd48ba8-9251-5555-9885-944850cdab69.html

charrob
06-03-2015, 06:26 PM
Thanks Brian for adding clarity to what the new laws really mean.

I don't really understand the whole legal process. It seems phone companies have to hand over records under reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause -- which is against the Constitution. Can there be simple lawsuits against this legislation? Or does there have to be a defendant that has been harmed by the legislation before a lawsuit can be brought to court to establish standing?

Brian4Liberty
06-03-2015, 06:56 PM
Thanks Brian for adding clarity to what the new laws really mean.

I don't really understand the whole legal process. It seems phone companies have to hand over records under reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause -- which is against the Constitution. Can there be simple lawsuits against this legislation? Or does there have to be a defendant that has been harmed by the legislation before a lawsuit can be brought to court to establish standing?

Good questions. I'm not sure. It seems like there has to be an injured party, but with all of the secret courts, and "you can't even tell anyone we are investigating" nonsense, who knows.

otherone
06-03-2015, 07:06 PM
“I’ve always said that I believe we can have our freedom and our liberty and our Fourth Amendment rights protected, and have security at the same time,” Blum said.

The Founders would agree:
https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.z07BKthz%2fal1BQ406e%2bF%2bw&pid=15.1&P=0

William Tell
06-03-2015, 07:08 PM
Good man.

charrob
06-03-2015, 07:58 PM
thanks Brian...

TaftFan
06-03-2015, 09:24 PM
I like Blum a lot.