Now, I have no idea what this pie fight could possibly be about. But last evening, all but two House Republicans voted against the Bill of Rights! I kid you not.
Has the partisan politics of the Republican Party gotten to the point that they will now go on record as voting against the Constitution if it grants them some petty political point?
The answer my friend, is yes.
Yes, they will.
2 House Republicans Vote to Uphold the Bill of Rights
By Karina, The Gavel
http://www.democraticleader.gov/...
Today, Democrats offered a motion to recommit on legislation to extend expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act to ensure that PATRIOT Act powers are not used to violate the Constitutional freedoms and protections guaranteed to all Americans. The motion included two parts:
No Constitutional shortcuts. When investigating American citizens, the government must comply with the Constitution, even in national security investigations
Challenging unconstitutional action. If a citizen challenges the government’s use of PATRIOT Act power in a court of law, the case must be expedited to ensure the individual’s rights are upheld.
Instead of voting to prevent government from overreaching and trampling over Americans’ Constitutional liberties, only two House Republicans, Reps. Walter Jones (R-NC) and Ron Paul (R-TX), joined all House Democrats in voting for the motion.
Oh Ron Paul, one minute I salute you, the next I want to throw tomatoes. But moving past the engima that is the Ron Paul and his sidekick Rep. Walter Jones, how could 234 Congressional Republicans vote against the Bill of Rights?
Maybe there is something tricky in the law:
Text of the motion offered by Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA) and Rep. David Price (D-NC):
MOTION TO RECOMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS
Mr. Thompson moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 514, to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
At the end of section 1, add the following new subsection:
(c) COMPLIANCE WITH CONSTITUTION.—
(1) INVESTIGATIONS MUST COMPLY WITH CONSTITUTION.—Each investigation of a United States citizen conducted under an extended authority shall be conducted in a manner that complies with the Constitution of the United States, including the first through tenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States (commonly known as the “Bill of Rights”).
(2) EXPEDITED REVIEW OF VIOLATIONS.—In any civil proceeding before a Federal court that involves an alleged violation of paragraph (1), such court shall expedite such proceeding.
(3) EXTENDED AUTHORITY DEFINED.—In this subsection, the term ‘‘extended authority’’ means any authority available under—
(A) an amendment to section 105(c)(2),501, or 502 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805(c)(2), 1861, 1862) that took effect after October 25, 2001;or
(B) section 101(b)(1)(C) of such Act, as amended by section 6001(a) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (Public Law 108-458; 118 Stat. 3742).
Huh, so basically this motion would ensure the right of redress to citizens for transgressions against the Bill of Rights by the government. Looking at you Fourth Amendment!
So why would 243 House Republicans vote against the Bill of Rights?
What kind of petty partisan politics are they playing that they would vote against the Constitution?
You know, the very Constitution they swore to uphold and now require to be cited for every bill?
Someone needs to start asking these rodeo clowns about their votes, which are on record.
And for the record, not a single Congressional Democrat voted against this.
Updated by Patience John at Wed Feb 16, 2011, 04:06:27 PM
So some might think is pointless, and if they think that is the case, I politely point them to the Electronic Frontier Foundation's campaign to change this section:
http://w2.eff.org/...
Unlike with any other defendant, if you want to sue the federal government for illegal wiretapping you have to first go through an administrative procedure with the agency that did the wiretapping. That means, essentially, that you have to politely complain to the illegal wiretappers and tip them off to your legal strategy, and then wait for a while as they decide whether to do anything about it before you can sue them in court.