The “Patriot Act” vs. the People of Texas

[David Van Os]

When the Constitutional Convention of 1787 presented the proposed Constitution to the people of the new nation known as the United States of America, the people demanded that a Bill of Rights be added, or else the Constitution would not be ratified.

Thus we have the First Ten Amendments, the majestic Bill of Rights of the American Constitution. The Americans of 1787 intended the Bill of Rights to endure through all time, as the untouchable covenant ensuring that the people would be the masters and government the servant. In the Bill of Rights, our forebears of yesteryear gave one of the greatest gifts that any people has ever given to all the people of the world. They intended that the protections of the Bill of Rights would belong to all succeeding generations of Americans as their national birthright, never to be taken away or given away. Many brave Americans have fought and bled on foreign shores in order to assure the fulfillment of the Founders’ intent.

The American Bill of Rights is just as much a birthright of the people of Texas as it is of the people of Boston or Philadelphia. Texas has joined the United States of America twice, first through the Treaty of Annexation of 1845, and then upon readmission to the Union in 1866 after its ill-conceived affiliation with the so-called Confederate States of America. Every citizen of Texas is also a citizen of the nation. In every possible way, the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution belongs to every Texan.

When the Founders of Texas created a Constitution for their new republic in 1836 after winning independence from the dictator Santa Anna, they included a Bill of Rights, making it the first article of the Constitution of the Republic of Texas. Article 1, the Bill of Rights, of the Texas Constitution has continued since that time down through the centuries and decades of Texas history, even from nationhood to statehood, and through successive rewrites of the State Constitution, as a virtually unchanged, magnificent covenant of liberty belonging to all the people of Texas, protecting their rights and liberties in ways that are both similar to and in some cases even stronger than the protections of the U.S. Constitution.

These great covenants of liberty were intended to be permanent. They are supposed to be permanent for as long as our peoples endure. For any U.S. congress or president to try to nullify anything in the American Bill of Rights is a betrayal of every reason that the public offices they hold even exist. For any Texas public official to sit still for nullification of anything in either Bill of Rights is a betrayal of the people of Texas.

Yet today, the United States Congress is on the verge of re-enacting, at the request of the Bushite president, a detestable legislative act that they have the gall to call the Patriot Act, and that on its face seeks to nullify Constitutional protections that were written for the very purpose of protecting the people from the very government action that is about to take place. Under the misnamed Patriot Act (actually one of the most unpatriotic laws ever enacted), agents of the Federal Government will claim the right to seize private papers, records, and belongings of American citizens without obtaining warrants from judges, and without having to demonstrate probable cause to suspect the commission of crimes – in direct contradiction to one of the very reasons the American Revolutionaries rose against the British Empire to create our nation. As if that were not bad enough, agents of the Federal Government will also claim the right to compel librarians to inform the Government what books an American citizen has checked out of a library – as if we all lived in George Orwell’s nightmarish Big Brother society instead of the United States of America. These provisions were abominable when the Patriot Act was first enacted four years ago. It would be even more abominable today to re-enact them, after so many voices in America have been raised against doing such damage to fundamental protections that were intended to protect us from tyranny for all time.

A small coalition of Senators from both parties, including Democrats Feingold (Wisconsin), Salazar (Colorado) and Durbin (Illinois), and Republicans Murkowski (Alaska), Craig (Idaho) and Sununu (New Hampshire), is opposing these police-state measures and attempting to build support for a filibuster. Their battle is an uphill one, as majorities from both parties appear to support these eviscerations of our liberties, with most Senate Republicans displaying their usual blind lemming obedience to their White House master, and most Senate Democrats once again running like scared rabbits from a Bushite play of the terrorism card. The opposition Senators need all the support we can give them. Nevertheless these assaults on the Bill of Rights may pass; but if they do, there are other lines of defense against them that do not depend upon the votes of Senators.

After the voters of Texas choose me to serve them as Attorney General in next November’s elections, before I can take office I will have to swear an oath to the Constitutions of the United States and Texas. In obedience to that oath, my highest duty will be to honor and protect the fundamental birthright of the people of Texas to their Constitutional protections. No government agent has the Constitutional authority to seize your private possessions without a warrant or probable cause, no government agent has the Constitutional authority to pass judgment on what books you choose to read in a public library, and no pack of scaredy-cat politicians has the Constitutional authority to give any government agent such powers. Let there be no doubt about this – as Texas Attorney General, chief legal advisor to the other officers of State Government, and the people’s lawyer, I will apply every effort and resource of my office to defending the Constitutional rights of the people of Texas against these or similar provisions of the so-called Patriot Act or any other such legislation, no matter how many gutless politicians of no matter what political party enact them or seek to apply them.

David Van Os
Democratic Candidate
For Texas Attorney General 2006

[PDittie]

1. "Bushites."

I'm hearing that as "bu-shit" (and yes I know you don't say it that way. But thta's still the way it sounds to me.)

:yourock: :headbang: :yourock: :headbang: :yourock: :headbang:
:kick: :dem: :kick: :dem: :kick: :dem:
:woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause:

[David Van Os]

6. Is that what my English teacher meant.....

...by homonymns? Works for me.

DVO

[sonias]

2. The Most Unpatriotic Act

This shameful act of stealing of our civil rights under the guise of security, is the most evil plan this administration has rammed through. Not just once, but now we're bordering on twice. Right under the very noses of those who "represent" us. No one but Feingold even read the first act before they voted. And more disgusting, is how few of our own will stand with those few like Feingold to protect our Bill of Rights. These cowards will only feign patriotism by protecting symbols like the flag, but they have no backbone to protect our real freedoms.

Thank you David for standing up!

Sonia

[Citrene]

3. My prediction: David Van Os wins in a landslide, record turnout!

With or without the damned e-vote machines!

(I need more Van Os bumper stickers in Dallas!)

You are an inspiration Mr. Van Os!

[David Van Os]

5. Give my campaign staff your mailing address and...

...they'll mail you some. Email your information to [e-mail], and ask for bumper stickers to be mailed to you.

David Van Os

[Czolgosz]

4. Even among the GOP, only Corporatist-NeoCons support the "Patriot" Act

The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press's polling report “Beyond Red vs. Blue” addresses approval among Republican voting groups for the ironically names "Patriot Act" and here's the principal finding by the Pew Center: "Enterprisers (i.e., corporatist neocons) are the only voters to overwhelmingly believe that the Patriot Act is a necessary tool in the war on terrorism. Liberals are the strongest opponents of the legislation."

Here's a graph:



Here's a broader discussion of the Pew Center study and other progressive wedge issues in another thread (that could use some kicking from anyone who finds the polling data worthwhile): <http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5597385&mesg_id=5597385>

[Vincardog]

7. David I am proud you speak for me.

[MagickMuffin]

8. We appreciate someone willing to stand up

for our "Bill of Rights":applause:

But this isn't the first time our BOR has been trashed.

The fourth amendment has been under attack for several years because of the "War on (certain) Drugs", the feds, the state, and local law enforcement officers can invade your privacy whenever they feel like it.
Probable cause, doesn't matter; No Search Warrant, doesn't matter; Unreasonable Search and Seizure, Doesn't Matter:grr:

As long as we rid this country of druggies, peace activist, non-believers, etc. etc. will our country be SAFE :sarcasm:

Also, long before 9-11, congress has had the Patriot Act ready. They were ready to push through the legislation of the Sneak and Peek law. You know the one where they can invade your home when you are not present, do a sneak and peek and never inform you they were there (at least for a few months). This is part of a bill they tried passing in the summer of 2000.

Pastor Martin Niemöller put it well, in WWII: "First came for the Jews and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out, because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out, because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me."

Question: Will we be able to reverse the Patriot Act, in the immediate future?

[sonias]

9. Texas Congressional Roll call on "Patriot Act"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051214/ap_on_go_co/house_rollcall_patriot_act
TEXAS
Democrats — Cuellar, Y; Doggett, N; Edwards, Y; Gonzalez, N; Green, Al, N; Green, Gene, N; Hinojosa, N; Jackson-Lee, N; Johnson, E. B., N; Ortiz, X; Reyes, Y.

Republicans — Barton, Y; Bonilla, Y; Brady, Y; Burgess, Y; Carter, Y; Conaway, Y; Culberson, Y; DeLay, Y; Gohmert, Y; Granger, Y; Hall, Y; Hensarling, Y; Johnson, Sam, Y; Marchant, Y; McCaul, Y; Neugebauer, Y; Paul, N; Poe, X; Sessions, Y; Smith, Y; Thornberry, Y.

Cuellar's vote doesn't surprise me, he's a republican at heart, but Edwards and Reyes are disappointments on that vote. Cowards.

Sonia

[MagickMuffin]

10. I asked this in my other post

Questions: Will we be able to reverse the Patriot Act, in the immediate future?

Will we be able to open this up for future debate?

I too am disappointed in the Dems who voted for this, I suppose they are concerned about how the Repubs would use this against them in future campaigns.:eyes:

Damn we need a swift boat smilies-motocon!

[David Van Os]

14. Do you think it might stimulate debate when I file suit......

...on behalf of the people of Texas as their attorney general to have the offensive parts of the Patriot Act declared unconstitutional? I'm not joking about this. It will be one of the first major actions of my term in office.

[Czolgosz]

16. Wait, I thought the AG was supposed fight so Texans don't enjoy protection

from the ADA and other important rights. I guess that's just our current AG: <http://www.dpctexas.org/lanevten.pdf>

[MagickMuffin]

17. You sir, have my support

I will vote for anyone willing to stand up and speak truth to power.

We need more dedicated people running for office, who will protect the citizens from the corporate controlled government.

Since I have your attention, here's some other questions for you;

Why is it when I go to vote and there are seats open for the Courts, i.e. judges, there never seems to be any democrats on the ballot?

Does that indicate there are no liberal judges in Texas?

How can that be?

[liveoaktx]

18. Edwards vote shouldn't surprise you either

Look at his past voting record on Patriot Act, including where he voted against the Bernie Sander's library snoop amendment.

[DesEtoiles]

11. Gonzales said today "probable cause" is required for wiretap (?)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/12/13/DI2005121301425.html

Gonzales answered questions online today at the WaPo website:

Morrison, Colo.: It appears you are only giving your side of the issue while giving lip service to any objections. I have a vague memory of reports of thousands of wire taps, many without the required authorization. Couldn't the Congress just extend the current provisions for 90 days and then they and the administration could work for a consensus, which the current bill doesn't seem to be?

Alberto Gonzales: Unfortunately, there has been a great deal of misinformation about the PATRIOT Act and its use. The PATRIOT Act incorporates important safeguards, including judicial review, congressional oversight, and audits by the Inspector General. You mention wiretaps. All wiretaps must be authorized by a federal judge. In addition, investigators must show probable cause and comply with other requirements before the court may authorize the wiretap. This has always been the case, and the PATRIOT Act did nothing to diminish these safeguards.

________________

Is that correct? I thought the patriot act REMOVED the requirement of probable cause...

[DesEtoiles]

12. I think Gonzales lied-there is NO probable cause requirement under PA:

...From 1978 until the Patriot Act was passed, the FISA court's power to issue secret warrants was limited solely to intelligence-gathering, with a view toward preventing espionage and terrorism. Thus, to procure such a warrant, the government had to convince the FISA court there was "probable cause" that the surveillance target was a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

Meanwhile, in other federal courts, and in and state courts, under the Fourth Amendment, a warrant to intercept a communication, or a search warrant, had to be based on "probable cause" to believe that a crime has been or is being committed.

Now, as a result of Section 218, intelligence gathering need only be "a significant purpose" of FISA-authorized surveillance. This amounts to an end run around Americans' Fourth Amendment rights, because another purpose of the surveillance could well be domestic law enforcement.

And it has been: Not just CIA agents, but FBI agents as well -- or even state law enforcement, cooperating with the CIA and FBI -- have used FISA's secrecy and its lower legal standards for warrants and wiretaps.

This "significant purpose" standard should be removed, or clearly limited by the requirement of a nexus to terrorism on the domestic side. But that is not what PAREA does.

Indeed, Section 203 of PAREA not only will make Section 218 permanent, it will also broaden the section. It states that that "foreign intelligence information" includes a need to gather information for criminal law enforcement related to terrorism.

What counts as "law enforcement related to terrorism"? "International terrorism" need not be involved, according to PAREA's sponsors' memorandum summarizing the bill. It is enough if the law enforcement involves "sabotage, clandestine activities and other grave hostile acts."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/01/ramasastry.patriotact2/

[David Van Os]

13. You've got it down right.......

Alberto Gonzalez is wrong. The Unpatriot Act dispenses with probable cause in the situations you describe, as well as in other ways.

Actually, Gonzalez probably doesn't even know what probable cause means - he's probably just repeating talking points that have been scripted for him. He was governor Bush's general counsel before Bush appointed him to the Texas Supreme Court, and before working in the governor's office he was a paper-pushing business lawyer in downtown Houston. He has never tried a lawsuit in a courtroom. Any young lawyer who has handled a couple of trials defending clients accused of misdemeanors wherein the legality of a search was in issue has more of a real working knowledge of probable cause and the Fourth Amendment than Gonzalez.

David Van Os

[DesEtoiles]

15. it enrages me to know that that incompetent hack is AG.

He is AG because George likes him. They're buds. While George tries to destroy affirmitive action because we should all get there on our own merits, he says, he certainly has not put that into practice. Every appointment is an unqualified hack crony.

[PDittie]

19. And he might yet be on the USSC

We have GOT to take our country back, and David is gonna lead the charge.

His campaign needs any help you can spare, people.