4th Amendment and the Patriot Act Part I
USA PATRIOT ACT (USAPA) introduced changes which significantly increase the surveillance and investigative powers of law enforcement agencies in the US. These new powers included criminal as well terrorism activities. The ACT did not provide for a system of checks and balances that safeguard civil liberties. Probable cause and judicial review were frequently replaced by certification by law enforcement officials. In this process a law official appears before the court and certifies that the requested procedure is for a criminal or terrorism investigation. The Court has to approve it. There is no judicial opinion involved. Other methods used to avoid judicial review are the allowable use of subpoenas and search warrants.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Friday, September 19, 2008
What we should be AWARE of?
Where is the conservative Blog 5A
Supreme Court taking us?
What should we be aware of?
Chief Justice Roberts in an article written in 1993 wrote, ”A relaxed doctrine of ‘standing’. would transform the courts into an ombudsmen of the administrative bureaucracy, a role for which they are ill-suite both institutionally and as matter of democratic theory.” In another.” article written in 1993 Justice Roberts wrote, “The one thing(Congress) may not due is ask the courts in effect to exercise (legislative) oversight responsibility at the behest of any John Q. Public whom happens to be interested in the issue.”
Justice Scalia has gone one step further. Writing about the Lujan vs. Wildlife Defenders, he wrote, “If Congress could authorize mere citizens to ensure that federal agencies followed the law it would interfere with the president’s constitutional duty to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed”.. Diogenes’ personal opinion, nonsense..
THE REVERSE SIDE OF THE COIN. Any increase in judicial restraint increases the power of the executive, namely the President. The more the Court restrains the weaker the oversight and the greater the executive power, and vice versa..
Our system of gov’t was called a system of checks and balances. It was based on a English idea that “mixed govt is best”. Each of the branches of gov’t, legislative, executive. and judicial would keep informed and check on the other two.
The quotations from Justice Scalia and Justice Roberts above would indicate that if the conservatives continue to get their way the Supreme Court practically gives up the Court’s oversight role as a counter balance to the other two branches of gov’t.
On certain issues such as greater transparency in govt, trying to maintain some checks and balances, guarding against executive overreach, and civil liberties the “liberals” and more liberal conservatives can come together .to make a majority.
This is particularly important because the congressional republicans in recent terms has shown no interest in an oversight role of the executive branch. They have acted like a cheering section for whatever the executive wanted. Diogenes believes the Congress has neglected and abandoned its constitutional duties.
Supreme Court taking us?
What should we be aware of?
Chief Justice Roberts in an article written in 1993 wrote, ”A relaxed doctrine of ‘standing’. would transform the courts into an ombudsmen of the administrative bureaucracy, a role for which they are ill-suite both institutionally and as matter of democratic theory.” In another.” article written in 1993 Justice Roberts wrote, “The one thing(Congress) may not due is ask the courts in effect to exercise (legislative) oversight responsibility at the behest of any John Q. Public whom happens to be interested in the issue.”
Justice Scalia has gone one step further. Writing about the Lujan vs. Wildlife Defenders, he wrote, “If Congress could authorize mere citizens to ensure that federal agencies followed the law it would interfere with the president’s constitutional duty to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed”.. Diogenes’ personal opinion, nonsense..
THE REVERSE SIDE OF THE COIN. Any increase in judicial restraint increases the power of the executive, namely the President. The more the Court restrains the weaker the oversight and the greater the executive power, and vice versa..
Our system of gov’t was called a system of checks and balances. It was based on a English idea that “mixed govt is best”. Each of the branches of gov’t, legislative, executive. and judicial would keep informed and check on the other two.
The quotations from Justice Scalia and Justice Roberts above would indicate that if the conservatives continue to get their way the Supreme Court practically gives up the Court’s oversight role as a counter balance to the other two branches of gov’t.
On certain issues such as greater transparency in govt, trying to maintain some checks and balances, guarding against executive overreach, and civil liberties the “liberals” and more liberal conservatives can come together .to make a majority.
This is particularly important because the congressional republicans in recent terms has shown no interest in an oversight role of the executive branch. They have acted like a cheering section for whatever the executive wanted. Diogenes believes the Congress has neglected and abandoned its constitutional duties.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Probable Supremer Court Oitlook
Where is the conservative B log 4C
Supreme Court taking us?
What is the probable Court outlook ?
Court history shows that the periods of conservatism far outnumber progressive periods. The makeup of the present court will result in many years of conservative outlook. At the present there are no conservative Judges ready to retire. The next Judge to retire will probably be liberal Justice Stevens now 87 but still in good health. If a democrat is President the court could maintain its present make up. If a Republican is President the court would probably move further to the right.
What does this mean for us the public?
It means the end of an era where many thought that the Court would be a protector of our rights and civil liberties. These people thought the Court would be a force for “equality” as promised by the constitution. Equality in respect to color, gender, race, religion, minorities, etc. Secondly the Court would be a force for expanding the constitutional rights of individuals. including criminal suspects, against the power of the state.
The question maybe what rights maybe lost. This also may be an unduly pessimistic outlook. In this age turnabouts sometime come quickly and surprisingly fast.
Supreme Court taking us?
What is the probable Court outlook ?
Court history shows that the periods of conservatism far outnumber progressive periods. The makeup of the present court will result in many years of conservative outlook. At the present there are no conservative Judges ready to retire. The next Judge to retire will probably be liberal Justice Stevens now 87 but still in good health. If a democrat is President the court could maintain its present make up. If a Republican is President the court would probably move further to the right.
What does this mean for us the public?
It means the end of an era where many thought that the Court would be a protector of our rights and civil liberties. These people thought the Court would be a force for “equality” as promised by the constitution. Equality in respect to color, gender, race, religion, minorities, etc. Secondly the Court would be a force for expanding the constitutional rights of individuals. including criminal suspects, against the power of the state.
The question maybe what rights maybe lost. This also may be an unduly pessimistic outlook. In this age turnabouts sometime come quickly and surprisingly fast.
Monday, September 8, 2008
The Court limits public access
Where is the conservative Blog 4B
Supreme Court taking us?
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
The court led by Justice Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts has limited access to the Courts on a wide range of issues. Restrictive “standing” has tended to harm liberal public-interests and lenient “standing” to help them.
The three essential requirements for standing are; an actual injury, proof that the injury was due to something the defendant did or failed to do, and proof that the injury would be redressed if the defendant did as the plaintiff asked.
Of interest, large majorities of Justices have denied or limited access to businesses in cases where they fear the free interplay of the market could be affected.
During .the last term the Court voted to protect some business practices from anti-trust suits, require greater evidence of collusion to allow cases to proceed, immunize for Wall Steet banks and brokers from anti-trust suits relating to activities regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission,, require plaintiffs to state allegations in greater detail. These decisions all set out rules that will bar some future claims from being heard.
The conservative Court is more friendly to business and gov’t and less friendly to individual rights than the liberal courts.
Two cases of interest. The Court ruled that the Freedom from Religion Foundation had no standing to sue over the executive promotion of faith based initiatives because the money came from executive discretionary funds not a congressional appropriation. Citizens can not file suits alleging that the government is spending money illegally. except for suits based on the Constitution’s Establishment clause, first amendment, the basis for separation of church and state.
Chief Justice Roberts has been very much against law suits contesting environmental rulings. Environment is one area, voter ID is another, where conservatives rejected the idea of assessing statues as soon as they are passed. The conservatives want to have a clear idea of the nature and effect in the real world. In the voter ID case the lawyer for the people bringing suit pointed out that waiting may influence the outcome of an election. The voter ID requirement was upheld even though there was no evidence of voter fraud,
Supreme Court taking us?
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
The court led by Justice Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts has limited access to the Courts on a wide range of issues. Restrictive “standing” has tended to harm liberal public-interests and lenient “standing” to help them.
The three essential requirements for standing are; an actual injury, proof that the injury was due to something the defendant did or failed to do, and proof that the injury would be redressed if the defendant did as the plaintiff asked.
Of interest, large majorities of Justices have denied or limited access to businesses in cases where they fear the free interplay of the market could be affected.
During .the last term the Court voted to protect some business practices from anti-trust suits, require greater evidence of collusion to allow cases to proceed, immunize for Wall Steet banks and brokers from anti-trust suits relating to activities regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission,, require plaintiffs to state allegations in greater detail. These decisions all set out rules that will bar some future claims from being heard.
The conservative Court is more friendly to business and gov’t and less friendly to individual rights than the liberal courts.
Two cases of interest. The Court ruled that the Freedom from Religion Foundation had no standing to sue over the executive promotion of faith based initiatives because the money came from executive discretionary funds not a congressional appropriation. Citizens can not file suits alleging that the government is spending money illegally. except for suits based on the Constitution’s Establishment clause, first amendment, the basis for separation of church and state.
Chief Justice Roberts has been very much against law suits contesting environmental rulings. Environment is one area, voter ID is another, where conservatives rejected the idea of assessing statues as soon as they are passed. The conservatives want to have a clear idea of the nature and effect in the real world. In the voter ID case the lawyer for the people bringing suit pointed out that waiting may influence the outcome of an election. The voter ID requirement was upheld even though there was no evidence of voter fraud,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)