Posted on 02/08/2011 5:11:43 PM PST by speciallybland
A measure to extend key provisions of the Patriot Act counterterrorism surveillance law through December failed the House Tuesday night, with more than two-dozen Republicans bucking their party to oppose the measure.
The House measure, which was sponsored by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) and required a two-thirds majority for passage, failed on a 277-to-148 vote. Twenty-six Republicans voted with 122 Democrats to oppose the measure, while 67 Democrats voted with 210 Republicans to back it. Ten members did not vote.
The measure would have extended three key provisions of the Patriot Act that are set to expire on Monday, Feb. 28, unless Congress moves to reauthorize them. One of the provisions authorizes the FBI to continue using roving wiretaps on surveillance targets; the second allows the government to access "any tangible items," such as library records, in the course of surveillance; and the third is a "lone wolf" provision of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act that allows for the surveillance of targets who are not connected to an identified terrorist group.
(Excerpt) Read more at voices.washingtonpost.com ...
All right, Justin Amash!
That vote for him is already paying off.
A ‘show’ vote. It’ll be back for a majority vote.
A terribly convoluted bill- even more than the original was which was hard enough to understand.
The press has done a great job of hiding Obama’s work on tyhis bill! They deserve a big hand from their socialist brothers. Obama is all for civil liberty you know...
Believe it or not I don’t worry about terrorist killing me as that is way down on the list of bad things that could ruin my day. It is much more likely that I will be the victim of a crime or killed in a traffic accident. The patriot act wasn’t about “fighting the ragheads” it was more about grabbing more power for the state which is why the RATS were screaming about it when GW was President but suddenly OK with it when O became President. They recognized what was a raw grab for power much better than your average conservative.
Tell me, do you enjoy being virtually stripped searched at the airport (and threatened with arrest and civil fines if you refuse)? Do you like having the feds snoop into your life electronically for any reason? If you do then you’re not a conservative, you’re just another comrade waving your red flag for the all powerful state. I’d rather be the turkey!
Oh horse-feces. Obi and his AQ minions have been laughing themselves silly at our kneejerk reactions to their operations. Remember the recent ink cartridge operation out of Yemen. It cost them approximately $4200 (including shipping), it cost us a lot more after. We have lost our liberties due to the likes of the Patriot Act, and OBL knows it.
Inspire Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula Magazine November 2010 Special Issue
And the Band played on.
Congrats next-door-neighbor to the North. I’ve got high hopes for tbis young man, but the jury is still out. This vote is one in the “plus” column.
Completely agree! The Patriot Act is stripping away our freedoms and turning the country into a police state.
Rome2000, see post #14. Not just this regime, but Washington DC in general can longer be trusted, with anything. Once bitten by Bush and the GOP, twice shy with Obama and the DNC.
Tom McClintock
Dana Rohrabacher
I don’t know about the rest of the list, but these two belonged to the Tea Party for DECADES before it ever existed. They are FAR from RINOs.
Its pretty retarded to be worried about wiretaps of raghead subhumans and other enemies of the state de rigeur when every American has to tell the IRS every intimate detail of their finances under penalty of imprisonment.
I’ll say this to those who think that it’s a good thing that the PATRIOT ACT is now expiring: Let’s pray to God you guys (and gals) are right that this had no effect on our security. I personally believe that it did, though, and I am deeply worried for the safety of the country. We have no account of how many terror threats and potential acts were stopped before they had a chance of getting into the national spotlight. As for the Republicans who voted a gainst the renewal, they were not RINOS, but ideological votes. I heard it said that most believe that the bill was unconstitutional, a principle that, to me, shows that these people respect the Constitution. Although, I think they were wrong in this case.
“Its pretty retarded to be worried about wiretaps of raghead subhumans and other enemies of the state de rigeur when every American has to tell the IRS every intimate detail of their finances under penalty of imprisonment.”
Here! Here! I can finally agree with you on something, while we’re at it lets repeal the 19th amendment as well as I firmly believe that amendment more than anything has lead to the tyranny that we currently suffer under!
“Dana Rohrabacher”
Hey that’s my Congress critter! I’ll have to write him a thank you note for standing up for my liberties! Way to go Dana!
LUNTZ: OK. Let's do Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney did not do well in Iowa, he did much better in New Hampshire and other states. Mitt Romney in 2012, is he the type of person you would be looking for?
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: That's right. He's exactly the person I want to win. He's got the experience. And I think that is sorely needed.
There's a reason Adams and the Founders kept women from voting:
John Adams to James Sullivan on women, the poor, and voting rights
May 26, 1776
[Adams explains why women, children, and the poor are excluded from the vote. — TGW]
It is certain in theory, that the only moral foundation of government is the consent of the people. But to what an extent shall we carry this principle? Shall we say, that every individual of the community, old and young, male and female, as well as rich and poor, must consent, expressly, to every act of legislation? No, you will say. This is impossible. How then does the right arise in the majority to govern the minority, against their will? Whence arises the right of the men to govern women, without their consent? Whence the right of the old to bind the young, without theirs?
But let us first suppose, that the whole community of every age, rank, sex, and condition, has a right to vote. This community, is assembled—a motion is made and carried by a majority of one voice. The minority will not agree to this. Whence arises the right of the majority to govern, and the obligation of the minority to obey? from necessity, you will say, because there can be no other rule. But why exclude women? You will say, because their delicacy renders them unfit for practice and experience, in the great business of life, and the hardy enterprises of war, as well as the arduous cares of state. Besides, their attention is so much engaged with the necessary nurture of their children, that nature has made them fittest for domestic cares. And children have not judgment or will of their own. True. But will not these reasons apply to others? Is it not equally true, that men in general in every society, who are wholly destitute of property, are also too little acquainted with public affairs to form a right judgment, and too dependent upon other men to have a will of their own? If this is a fact, if you give to every man, who has no property, a vote, will you not make a fine encouraging provision for corruption by your fundamental law? Such is the frailty of the human heart, that very few men, who have no property, have any judgment of their own. They talk and vote as they are directed by some man of property, who has attached their minds to his interest…
I should think that wisdom and policy would dictate in these times, to be very cautious of making alterations. Our people have never been very rigid in scrutinizing into the qualifications of voters, and I presume they will not now begin to be so. But I would not advise them to make any alteration in the laws, at present, respecting the qualifications of voters.
Your idea, that those laws, which affect the lives and personal liberty of all, or which inflict corporal punishment, affect those, who are not qualified to vote, as well as those who are, is just. But, so they do women, as well as men, children as well as adults. What reason should there be, for excluding a man of twenty years, Eleven months and twenty-seven days old, from a vote when you admit one, who is twenty one? The reason is, you must fix upon some period in life, when the understanding and will of men in general is fit to be trusted by the public. Will not the same reason justify the state in fixing upon some certain quantity of property, as a qualification.
The same reasoning, which will induce you to admit all men, who have no property, to vote, with those who have, for those laws, which affect the person will prove that you ought to admit women and children: for generally speaking, women and children, have as good judgment, and as independent minds as those men who are wholly destitute of property: these last being to all intents and purposes as much dependent upon others, who will please to feed, clothe, and employ them, as women are upon their husbands, or children on their parents…
Society can be governed only by general rules. Government cannot accommodate itself to every particular case, as it happens, nor to the circumstances of particular persons. It must establish general, comprehensive regulations for cases and persons. The only question is, which general rule, will accommodate most cases and most persons.
Depend upon it, sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation, as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters. There will be no end of it. New claims will arise. Women will demand a vote. Lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to, and every man, who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks, to one common level.
[From Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, ed., The Founders’ Constitution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 1:394-96.]
I wouldn’t call it a terrible proposal from Day 1. as I said in my previous post, we have no idea how many threats were actually thwarted that we have no idea about. This is column of our anti-terrorism policy that is being chopped out from underneath; the first was Obama’s nullification of the enhanced interrogation techniques. I am disheartened by the unfortunate lack of connection these Republicans made between national security and this Act. I do not see this as a politically divisive point in the Republican party, not yet at least. I just pray that all that say this did nothing were not wrong, and that we are not hit by another 9-11 magnitude attack. And please, don’t make a point out of Ft. Hood and Nidal Hassan, that was a totally different screw up by the Army, unfortunately.
Thank you, I agree.
Not sure I want this “magic Negro” with the extra powers the Pat act affords.
He is after all trying to destroy this system of life and govt
Agreed, but why pile on the 16th Amendment by giving them the Patriot Act to boot?!
Excellent! Good news for a change. I’ll still be shocked if they don’t find some way to resurrect this.
Uh, why did it require a 2/3 majority to pass? (And incidentally, given that requirement, the 26 Republicans made absolutely no difference to the outcome).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.