http://voices.washingtonpos...t-act-vote-some.html

Updated: 7:15 p.m.

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.

The vote came as several tea party-aligned members of the new freshman class had been expressing doubts about the measure.

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, who highlighted his opposition to the law during his upstart 2010 Senate campaign, signaled Monday that he may vote ultimately vote against an extension when the measure comes up in the Senate, likely later this month.

"I've had a lot of reservations about the Patriot Act," Paul said when asked whether he's leaning toward voting for an extension. "We're reviewing it and we're going over it, and we will have something out probably in the next couple of days," he added. "We won't be shy about it when it comes out."

Paul's father, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), was among the trio of Republican lawmakers who opposed the Patriot Act when the House approved it in October 2001.

Some young conservative lawmakers, including Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), had not yet decided how they would vote ahead of Tuesday night; Chaffetz later said in an interview after the vote that he had indeed decided to support the measure. A spokesperson for Chaffetz's Utah colleague, conservative freshman Sen. Mike Lee (R), did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Meanwhile, one of the Senate's newly-elected moderate Republicans, Sen. Mark Kirk (Ill.), said Monday that he's likely to vote in favor of extending the Patriot Act provisions, adding that "it would be smart" for the Senate to back a three-year extension.

"Having it disappear is not the right answer," Kirk said.

Some Democrats opposed to the Patriot Act had seized on Tuesday's vote as an opportunity to question tea-party-backed lawmakers' reverence for the Constitution.

Ohio Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who voted against the measure in 2001, released a statement Monday calling Tuesday's House vote "the tea party's first test."

"The 112th Congress began with a historic reading of the U.S. Constitution," Kucinich said. "Will anyone subscribe to the First and Fourth Amendments tomorrow when the PATRIOT Act is up for a vote? I am hopeful that members of the Tea Party who came to Congress to defend the Constitution will join me in challenging the reauthorization."

The Patriot Act has long been an issue that has not divided neatly along party lines. Former Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold was the only senator to originally vote against the measure in 2001 and was among the law's most outspoken opponents. But as portions of the law have come up for reauthorization over the years, its opponents have often included both Republican and Democratic members.

The White House on Tuesday said in a statement that it "does not object" to extending the three Patriot Act provisions until December 2011 although it "would strongly prefer" an extension until December 2013, noting that the longer timeline "provides the necessary certainty and predictability" that law enforcement agencies require while at the same time ensuring congressional oversight by maintaining a sunset.

In addition to the House legislation, the Senate is considering three competing timelines, including proposals that would permanently extend the three provisions or extend them through 2013. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), both of whom have introduced competing proposals, said Monday that committee members continue to work toward an agreement but declined to speculate as to the end result.

"We're working on that this week," Leahy said. "It's got to be done. ... I don't want it to be a situation where none of them go through."

//www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/082512.html

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives failed Tuesday to extend the life of three surveillance tools that are crucial to the United States' post-Sept. 11 anti-terror law, a slipup for the new Republican leaders who miscalculated the level of opposition. The House voted 277-148 to keep the three provisions of the USA Patriot Act on the books until Dec. 8. Republicans brought up the bill under a special expedited procedure that required a two-thirds majority, and the vote was seven short of reaching that level. The Republicans, who took over the House last month, lost 26 of their own members, adding to the 122 Democrats who voted against it. Supporters say the three measures are vital to preventing another terrorist attack like those on Sept. 11, 2001, but critics say they infringe on civil liberties. They appealed to the antipathy that newer and more conservative Republicans hold for big government invasions of individual privacy. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id...litics-capitol_hill/

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 02-09-2011).]

"The Game Just Gets Weirder By The Minute"

I guess I can see how that translates to "Patriot Act"...

Doesn't matter.

They will re-vote next week under different conditions where all that is needed is a majority vote, not a two-thirds vote. They clearly have majority, so it will be extended.

They were the ones who were most vocally against it, when it was first past. Now they will just rubber stamp it when they get a chance.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: They were the ones who were most vocally against it, when it was first past. Now they will just rubber stamp it when they get a chance.

Who is "they?"

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: Ten members did not vote.

Ten members need to do the job they were elected to do.

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
it seems most of these "constitionalists" can only read up to the 2nd......

the name "Patriot Act" is such a lie. "Gestapo Act" would be much more fitting.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. it seems most of these "constitionalists" can only read up to the 2nd...... the name "Patriot Act" is such a lie. "Gestapo Act" would be much more fitting.

But it's to protect us from the bad guys.
It's the only way.
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

Something as big as the above is of little concern, and yet people complain at the new airport prociedures...........
It's like complaining about stubbing your toe but not saying a word about getting your foot cut off.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 02-09-2011).]

I'd rather live free than oppressed. The "patriot" act was supposed to be a temporary measure because it takes away some of our freedoms. Those who are willing to give up their freedom for security have neither one.
To answer the question asked of me above, the "they" I am referring too are the hypocrites who were "against" the patriot act when it was first passed. The reason they are hypocrites is because now they are for it. If it was so terrible, like they were saying, why vote to keep it?

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 02-09-2011).]

9/11 a distant memory
Raghead Muslims gain strength
American Moslems growing more Radical
Israel is green
All the countries around Israel are wastelands like MORDOR & ruled by followers of a Mass baby murderer ,rapist,assasin,he swaped Walmart labels for cheaper price ..
3 rings for the elv.................
1 for the dark lord in the land of MORDOR whe...............
the eye is wandering ,observing,seeking ,knowing ,approving,...condemnation!!

quote Originally posted by avengador1: The "patriot" act was supposed to be a temporary .

And the reduction in the frequency of my "marital relations" started as a headache...............

“Naturally the common people don't want war; ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” -

Hermann Goering
at the Nuremburg Trials

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: And the reduction in the frequency of my "marital relations" started as a headache...............

She could always get ya some tylenol...
A headache's also one of Viagra's possible side effects.
just sayin.

Sounds like the voice of experience to me.

Wait a minute, maryjane, you or her?

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. it seems most of these "constitionalists" can only read up to the 2nd...... the name "Obama Care" is such a lie. "GESTAPO CARE" would be much more fitting.

Why did Obama Care keep popping in my head while I was reading that?

quote Originally posted by partfiero: Why did Obama Care keep popping in my head while I was reading that?

not sure? none of the above applies in any way, does it?

quote Originally posted by heybjorn: Sounds like the voice of experience to me.

It should--inspite of seeing pyrithia's past claims that no one here would dare talk about such things, I ain't skeered to talk about any subject.

I'm not afraid to talk about this either.. the Bush admin declared war on his own people's rights when this piece of crap got passed. A war on terror NEVER ENDS.. there is no country to defeat, no leader captured who can stop it... I dont feel protected by "the act", and I certainly have nothing to hide.. but that does not mean I want anyone to listen in on my phone conversations or read my emails LOOKING for any reason or excuse to harass/arrest/ or take me away. Its a bad law, pushed immediately through without anyone reading it under the guise of "doing anything we can to help president Bush protect the country.." Well, if they were gonna do that, the least the could do was READ the dang thing.

I wish I could bitchslap everyone who voted and signed off on it, Republican or Democrat. The Constitution has a skidmark on it from Bush wiping his butt with it.. I hope it never gets renewed and they have to craft a new protection bill that everyone will READ, and has provisions to not only protect us physically, but also our rights.

It will get renewed within 180 days, when it comes back up as a simple majority vote, and the President will not veto it.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 02-09-2011).]

Well, it's a good start. Next let's end the pathetic war on drugs and declare war on illegal aliens and crooked pliticians.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, PAPERS, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

We are the IRS and we want to see your papers that prove you have insurance

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, SELF INCRIMINATION, eminent domain. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

We do not care about that self incrimination thing, you must show your papers.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

No you can't fight this, either show us your papers or you will be fined, we are the IRS

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

There will be no trial, just show us the papers proving you have insurance, we are the IRS and we are the judge and the jury.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

We do not care if the fine is excessive and you think you can't afford it, you will be forced to pay.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: it seems most of these "constitionalists" can only read up to the 2nd...... the name "Obama Care" is such a lie. "GESTAPO CARE" would be much more fitting.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: not sure? none of the above applies in any way, does it?

Gee I don't know!

quote Originally posted by partfiero: Gee I don't know!

well, I'll jump on that bandwagon - yes - the IRS has got to go!

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: well, I'll jump on that bandwagon - yes - the IRS has got to go!

I have wondered if businesses paid all of the taxes and we weren't burdened by them, how small could we make the IRS?
And having that heavy hand lifted, how free we would feel.
Nah, the feds love that control, part of what makes them feel they have power over the people, instead of the other way around..

quote Originally posted by partfiero: I have wondered if businesses paid all of the taxes and we weren't burdened by them, how small could we make the IRS? And having that heavy hand lifted, how free we would feel. Nah, the feds love that control, part of what makes them feel they have power over the people, instead of the other way around..

I suppose the easy answer is to look back in history to before we had this income tax thingy.....

quote Originally posted by avengador1: I'd rather live free than oppressed. The "patriot" act was supposed to be a temporary measure because it takes away some of our freedoms. Those who are willing to give up their freedom for security have neither one.

yup

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. it seems most of these "constitionalists" can only read up to the 2nd...... the name "Patriot Act" is such a lie. "Gestapo Act" would be much more fitting.

On this, we agree.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: I suppose the easy answer is to look back in history to before we had this income tax thingy.....

Hard to look back to an earlier time in our history and know what "real" freedom actually felt like. Must have been like the Beaver would put it, "Really swell"!
Now we are all back on the Plantation, this time the feds own it.
Nice working for the man though, got my free housing, food is free with the card, and get a small check every month.
Freedom is just another word for, well you know the rest.

quote Originally posted by partfiero: Hard to look back to an earlier time in our history and know what "real" freedom actually felt like. Must have been like the Beaver would put it, "Really swell"! Now we are all back on the Plantation, this time the feds own it. Nice working for the man though, got my free housing, food is free with the card, and get a small check every month. Freedom is just another word for, well you know the rest.

well, you may keep searching for that greener grass - no harm in that
we have the greenest lawn EVER today. now. and it gets greener everyday.
yes, looking back, you can pick this or that single item, which may personally be a magic item of freedom which surpasses all others - but - on the whole - it gets better everyday.

but, that maybe because I happen to like the world, and the people in it.
even if it doesnt always sound that way with all the pissing & trolling I do

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: but, that maybe because I happen to like the world, and the people in it. even if it doesnt always sound that way with all the pissing & trolling I do

I always knew you were a humanist.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: well, you may keep searching for that greener grass - no harm in that we have the greenest lawn EVER today. now. and it gets greener everyday. yes, looking back, you can pick this or that single item, which may personally be a magic item of freedom which surpasses all others - but - on the whole - it gets better everyday. but, that maybe because I happen to like the world, and the people in it. even if it doesnt always sound that way with all the pissing & trolling I do

Yea but when those youngans who ain't been born yet have to get to paying for all of the safety nets they installed on our plantation, they ain't going to be too happy.
Oh well, F them!

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: well, I'll jump on that bandwagon - yes - the IRS has got to go!

You know, if the government had started with Tax Reform instead of Health Care Reform they would probably have been more popular.

YUP! He started to fail on day one.

He tried. Maybe that will count for something.

They got all jizzy with their majority and immediately went for the health care. I don't think there are many people here that don't think that the US system was due for some reform. The problem is, they should have went for the economy.

And it screwed him. The sad part is, he said that he doesn't care, if he has to be a one-term president to pass it, so be it.

And that is dangerous.

Ever had a job where you wanted to be fired? I don't doubt that he works hard, but without that concept of re-election, he's a loose cannon.

“They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.”

-Benjamin Franklin

quote Originally posted by partfiero: I have wondered if businesses paid all of the taxes and we weren't burdened by them, how small could we make the IRS?

Well...look at the bright side.

Maybe now the new House members can get around to that "focus like a laser on JOBS JOBS JOBS" thing we heard so much about.

So far though, not so much.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/type/h/1
http://www.senate.gov/pagel.../active_leg_page.htm

And probably won't be, but you can bet they won't be insulting, blaming, and alienating Industry and business leaders like the President and the last congress did for 2 years. Yep, that was a really productive strategy "Hey, Lets piss off the ONLY group of people in the country that can actually create jobs and grow the economy".

You don't see the Prez or Dems calling anyone "Fat Cats" now do ya?--nope-and you won't---they need 'em too much. Will industry come to Obama's aid or keep sitting on their cash?

I believe they will sit on it (for the most part) till Obama and the Senate Majority are gone.
"Go ahead Senator Reid, Representative Pelosi-- piss us off some more and see what it gets you in 2012."

"Are you better off today than you were in Jan 2008?"

quote Originally posted by maryjane: "Are you better off today than you were in Jan 2008?"

Why yes I am thank you for asking.


Live Free or Die Hard !

I don't see how the GOP still support the Patriot Act. After 9-11 I get it, but NOW?

It just baffles me, how people stand with party instead of standing on principal.

quote Originally posted by nosrac: I don't see how the GOP still support the Patriot Act. After 9-11 I get it, but NOW? It just baffles me, how people stand with party instead of standing on principal.

I agree.

The only thing I can think of is that they are Republicans first, conservatives second (or maybe ninth).

quote Originally posted by nosrac: I don't see how the GOP still support the Patriot Act. After 9-11 I get it, but NOW? It just baffles me, how people stand with party instead of standing on principal.

Indeed,

I will say that it appears the leftist tend to do that more. No, that aint an excuse, I HATE it when people point at somebody else's behavior when confronted with their own, redirection tactics only work on the mentally weak.