In the last couple of weeks, there has been an onslaught of legislation, both at the state and federal level that directly attacks the Constitution of the United States. First, there was the Arizona immigration legislation, SB1070, which violates the 4th Amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure. Then, upon arrest of Faisal Shahzad in New York, calls came up to violate 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination – among others – by not reading a suspect Miranda rights. Now, it’s the 14th Amendment.
Senator Joe Lieberman is introducing legislation that is aimed at revoking citizenship for “any individual American citizen who is found to be involved in a foreign terrorist organization, as defined by the Department of State, would be deprived of their citizenship rights”.
And that’s the way the legislation is worded. So, based on the legislation, if any law enforcement or government agency decides you are “involved in a foreign terrorist organization”, your citizenship can be revoked. If the FBI, for example, decides that you may have a connection to a terrorist organization, your citizenship may be revoked. It may not be true, and the legislation does not wait for a trial. The point of the legislation, as Lieberman has described it, is to be able to revoke citizenship of suspect so they can be treated as enemy combatants instead of criminal suspects. This, of course, is a knee-jerk reaction to the arrest of Shahzad and how they read him is Miranda rights – properly.
Of course, this ignores the fact that such a process is already part of the Constitution. Denaturalization can be implemented if the individual is found – at trial — to have taken up arms against the United States or commits an act of Treason. Shahzad fit this description. He has described the attack himself as an attack on the US. So the process to denaturalize him would be fairly straightforward. Which means there is no need for this legislation.
This legislation will not stand up to Constitutional scrutiny, but it is another scary foray into infringing people’s rights. And what is truly frightening is the number of people, who out of fear, ideology, or simply lack of knowledge regarding their rights, are getting behind these pieces of legislation.
But such flawed legislation isn’t presented because it will actually address an issue properly. No, it’s introduced to achieve a political end, as a cynical attempt to harness immediate public opinion by engendering false fear of something that is already addressed in the Constitution. And they do it by going after our rights.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Leo Soderman. Leo Soderman said: New post: First the 4th Amendment, Now the 14th http://bit.ly/9np8uA [...]
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703961104575226583645448758.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection
This is just a proposed rule, what is scarier is the FCC trying to seize control of the intertubes! FDR II! This after the Supremes ruled it unconstitutional.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703961104575226583645448758.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection
This is just a proposed rule, what is scarier is the FCC trying to seize control of the intertubes! FDR II! This after the Supremes ruled it unconstitutional.
No, you’re confusing this with a different bill. This one is in large part a response to a situation with Comcast. Comcast is a huge cable provider, and is buying up NBC. All the networks have been putting their stuff up on Hulu and other on demand sites. NBC has as well. So what does this have to do with the Internet? Being such a large provider, Comcast can limit access to competition’s websites, essentially choking off their traffic. So, if you don’t have Comcast and their network is between you and a site you like, they could block it – or make you pay for access to the site. The site gets choked. If you do have Comcast, they can limit your access to the competition. So, while ‘net neutrality’ is the buzzword, this is really closer to stopping a blockade.
No, you’re confusing this with a different bill. This one is in large part a response to a situation with Comcast. Comcast is a huge cable provider, and is buying up NBC. All the networks have been putting their stuff up on Hulu and other on demand sites. NBC has as well. So what does this have to do with the Internet? Being such a large provider, Comcast can limit access to competition’s websites, essentially choking off their traffic. So, if you don’t have Comcast and their network is between you and a site you like, they could block it – or make you pay for access to the site. The site gets choked. If you do have Comcast, they can limit your access to the competition. So, while ‘net neutrality’ is the buzzword, this is really closer to stopping a blockade.
Dude
Dude
So how come they do not bring an anti-trust suit instead of trying to grab the internet?
So how come they do not bring an anti-trust suit instead of trying to grab the internet?
Why do you want to characterize it as “grab the Internet”? First, anti-trust suits are expensive, lengthy, and only address one issue or one company. And anti-trust would have to show a monopoly in one industry. Not the case here. Second, anti-trust, even if successful, only affects that one company. Any other carrier can do the same, and the whole process starts over, costing taxpayers more money. And then there’s the issue of commerce. If a company is allowed to dictate whose data travels across their connections selectively, they can impede commerce at will. If they want, they can slow or stop traffic to a site, hindering their ability to do business. This isn’t about the government controlling the Internet, it’s about keeping others from controlling it.
Why do you want to characterize it as “grab the Internet”? First, anti-trust suits are expensive, lengthy, and only address one issue or one company. And anti-trust would have to show a monopoly in one industry. Not the case here. Second, anti-trust, even if successful, only affects that one company. Any other carrier can do the same, and the whole process starts over, costing taxpayers more money. And then there’s the issue of commerce. If a company is allowed to dictate whose data travels across their connections selectively, they can impede commerce at will. If they want, they can slow or stop traffic to a site, hindering their ability to do business. This isn’t about the government controlling the Internet, it’s about keeping others from controlling it.
Bs
Bs
PS: It is Friday, I have a little baby, I am old and not going to argue. Even though you know you are wrong
PS: It is Friday, I have a little baby, I am old and not going to argue. Even though you know you are wrong