Could Rand Paul single handedly cause the patrioit act to lapse?

Joemonkey

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2001
8,859
2
0
http://www.baltimoresun.com/enterta...patriot-act-to-lapse-20110524,0,6223582.story

"In a move that should be getting more notice this week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has thrown down the gauntlet over the renewal of the Patriot Act, provisions of which would expire Friday if not extended.
Paul has offered several "controversial" amendments to the bill, and could single-handedly cause the Patriot Act to lapse for a day, The Hill reported today.
What are these so-called "controversial" changes to the post-9/11 act -- which expanded governmental search powers -- that Paul wants?
American Civil Liberties Union "Controversial" things like requiring the government seek a judge's approval before conducting a search of someone's credit cards, emails, library books, bank statements, and business records or conducting a "roving wiretap," and requiring the government to actually come up with probable cause before searching such records or executing such wiretaps.
Where did Paul get the notion for these "controversial" demands? The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
"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."
In Paul's view, you don't have to be a constitutional scholar to understand the above stanza. You just have to be able to read.
Interestingly enough, President Barack Obama, when he was a senator like Paul, also took issue with these provisions of the Patriot Act. You can read the text of his 2005 letter on the subject here.
At the heart of the debate over the Patriot Act is a conflict between liberty and security. How much freedom from government searches should we give up to make sure we aren't victims of another terrorist attack?
On the Senate floor, Paul argued that's a false dichotomy and searching records without probable cause could actually make us less safe, as it wastes time from legitimate suspects.
"You can be opposed to terrorists ... but we can do it with a process that protects the innocent," Paul said.
Senate Major Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), apparently frustrated by Paul's opposition, is now attempting an end run around Paul in what Fox News dubbed "procedural gymnastics."
"Sen. Reid basically killed his current bill and and opted to take up a House small business bill (it's in a form that's considered filibuster-proof as far as starting debate goes)," Fox reports.
Paul might succeed in causing the Patriot Act to lapse, but Reid will likely win in the end.
But win or lose, Rand Paul has emerged as our country's face of Fourth Amendment advocacy. The First Amendment has the ACLU. The Second Amendment has the NRA. And the Fourth Amendment has Rand Paul."

The first comment on the article is pretty much the same way I feel - not a huge fan of Paul, but I sure hope he wins this filibuster, or at least gets it more attention.

http://dailypaul.com/165765/for-the-past-seven-hours-senator-paul-has-been-holding-the-senate-floor

also based on this it looks like he did it for 7 hours straight...
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
Excellent. Somebody needs to stop the "Patriot" Act, since none of our other elected officials have been willing to.
 

Ape

Golden Member
Jul 29, 2000
1,088
0
71
I hope he does, the Patriot Act and it's extensions were a joke.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
 

airdata

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2010
4,987
0
0
Could somebody tell me how the patriot act works with non citizens? Is the patriot act needed to wiretap a foreigner who is under any kind of suspicion ?
 

matt0611

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2010
1,879
0
0
Nice, I hope so, I like Rand Paul a lot.
I'm glad someone is doing something about the unpatriot act.
Wish more from both sides of the aisle would stand up to it.
 

p0nd

Member
Apr 18, 2011
139
0
71
It's a shame i disagree with Rand Paul on so much else. i really like his stance on this issue. i can only think of two other congressmen (kucinich, feingold) that openly opposed the Patriot Act before this. were there others?
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
This is the first thing he has proposed that I agree with also.
I should add some props for Senator Paul; I admit that this is a pretty big issue for me. One of my main disappointments with the Obama administration is the failure to roll back the civil liberty infringements of the Bush administration.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
So you were for it before you were against it? You used to argue for the patriot act and domestic wiretapping.

For the record I have always been against it and hope it lapses.

Wiretapping calls crossing our borders is A-OK without a warrant. Some parts of it are good, some bad.

But Rand Paul's stance has always been one to look at it from the side of "does government need to be involved or not" siding mostly on the not.
 

Joemonkey

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2001
8,859
2
0
So you were for it before you were against it? You used to argue for the patriot act and domestic wiretapping.

For the record I have always been against it and hope it lapses.

well, quite honestly I think a lot of people WERE for it back in the day, out of fear. Now they're against it. Some would call that flip flopping, but opinions can change over time for the better (or worse)
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
well, quite honestly I think a lot of people WERE for it back in the day, out of fear. Now they're against it. Some would call that flip flopping, but opinions can change over time for the better (or worse)

And the bush admin loved tapping into that fear. Remember the color system would always move move around when some critical shit came out about booosh?
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
The PATRIOT Act was never intended to protect the people. It was simply to increase the power of the federal government, as indicated by the fact that it hasn't stopped one damn terrorist attack the 10 years it's been in effect.
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
well, quite honestly I think a lot of people WERE for it back in the day, out of fear. Now they're against it. Some would call that flip flopping, but opinions can change over time for the better (or worse)

Ten years changes a lot of things.
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
And the bush admin loved tapping into that fear. Remember the color system would always move move around when some critical shit came out about booosh?

Fine, so they screwed around with that idiotic color system (I was in middle/high school, my give-a-damn was focused elsewhere), but Bush has been out of office for nearly 2.5 years (damn, that was quick). Can we please move on? Perhaps we should be focusing not on Bush's fearmongering, but on the continued use of fear by our government to further erode our freedom?
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
Fine, so they screwed around with that idiotic color system (I was in middle/high school, my give-a-damn was focused elsewhere), but Bush has been out of office for nearly 2.5 years (damn, that was quick). Can we please move on? Perhaps we should be focusing not on Bush's fearmongering, but on the continued use of fear by our government to further erode our freedom?

Thats cool. But it would be in our collective best interests to not forget such things.