Rank5

Idea#12

This idea is active.
Governing Philosophy/Process »

Fisa, telecom immunity and your oath of office

I'm curious how any Democrat, much less any member of Congress, considered their oath of office to uphold the Constitution before they voted to allow for telecom immunity in the service of warrantless, secret, illegal and unconstitutional searches of our phone calls.

As the Bill passed under your stewardship, clearly not many did. What a disservice to the citizens of your district and to the country overall.

Comment

Submitted by zanesafrit 5 years ago

Vote Activity Show

(latest 20 votes)

Comments (10)

  1. FISA is a diversionary issue for idiots. Right now corporations know far more about you than you know about you. It has come about due to the permanence and instant exchange of millions of data points corporations collect, analyze and report back on how stupid the general populace is and how best to make a profit out of it.

    Our monetary exchange system is so open, so "convienient" that one is essentially leaving piles of cash on the street for anyone to pick up. Having money though one can pay for a service that watches all of this activity and will answer that nagging question 24/7 for you. "Did I steal myself". the answer is LifeLock or Identity Truth. Now outside of my credit rating what corporate agency can I contact to find out how much of me lies on the internet in digital form. Truely I would like to know if that information is true, complete and not subject to the interpretation of mouth breathing goons at Homeboy Security.

    5 years ago
  2. zanesafrit Idea Submitter

    Last,

    Great comment.

    You're right. Our personal privacy isn't the issue, either, really. As you point out we freely share our calling records with the phone companies (we have no choice) and our buying habits with companies and the cookies they place on our computers.

    Nor is the procedures of the FISA court, the issue.

    The issue is the willingness, or the lack, of our congressional leaders to fulfill their responsibility as our representatives and honor their oath of office, to uphold the Constitution, to uphold the rule of law. Allowing warrantless searches by the telecom community of our calling records on behalf of a secret program aimed not at international calling, but ALL calling, by American citizens is both illegal and unconstitutional. (They usually go hand in hand...) And by then allowing for retroactive immunity at this point...failing to uphold their oaths, our form of government.

    5 years ago
  3. What's the question here, exactly?

    There are other actual questions on this issue.

    5 years ago
  4. I believe you were looking for "rantatthespeaker.com" One good way to tell whether you've written a rant or a question is to look for question marks. If there aren't any, you may have just written a rant.

    5 years ago
  5. This is a good preamble, but needs a question. Perhaps it could be combined with one of the other proposals on this same topic.

    5 years ago
  6. zanesafrit Idea Submitter

    Here's the question: Ms. Speaker, did you consider your oath of office, the oath that included the provision to defend and protect the constitution, our constitution...did you consider that oath and its terms as you voted to allow activities now and in the past that clearly violated the terms of that oath?

    I think I have the appropriate punctuation preceded by the appropriate interrogative pronoun to qualify as a question.

    But at the end of the day, with never a response from the Speaker herself, does it really matter if it's a rant, a question, a dialogue.

    5 years ago
  7. The question is, which part of the bill do you (Speaker Pelosi) support? Can you quote us the text and tell us why you think it's essential that this be passed in the middle of a presidential election? Why did you think it was worth bringing up a divisive issue like this and risking having people who care about the Constitution--left, right and center--decide not to vote for the Democratic candidate because he voted in favor of this (or give the Republicans a campaign issue if he didn't)? Why would you give the White House a win on this issue? Why were the positive aspects of the bill as you see them more important than the detrimental aspects of putting political pressure on the courts (something we abhorred in the Terry Schiavo case) in the telecom immunity aspects? Also, why would you side with people who committed criminal and unconstitutional acts against the American people? And, then, why would you interfere with having the crimes of the Bush Administration put on the public record, as they surely would be in these court cases? And, BTW, to the degree that his weakens congressional and court oversight of the process, this bill could damage the security of the United States. Did you realize this when you allowed this bill to come to the floor?

    5 years ago
  8. it was going to take a woman to clean up the house........what happened? You really let us down...Andrea

    5 years ago
  9. What is your understanding of the fourth ammendment?

    5 years ago
  10. IT IS ALL ABOUT CORPORATE GREED AND NOTHING ELSE MATTERS IN OUR PRESENT ADMINISTRATIOON, SU9PREME COURT AND CONGRESS.

    5 years ago