OT: Questions for Americans

[Morris Dovey]

Amendment IV of the US Constitution provides:

"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."

and Article I, Section 9 of that Constitution contains, as a complete stand-alone paragraph:

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

So can anyone here on the Wreck explain how and why the records of private conversations of very large number of American citizens were examined without warrants (FISA or otherwise, as specified in the fourth amendment)...

...and how it can be that President is urging, and Congress is now considering, passage of an ex post facto law to grant immunity for all of those fourth amendment violations?

It appears to me that the request for, and the consideration of, such legislation is nothing less than an admission of a great many violations of Constitutional law and an attempt to avoid responsibility.

What am I not understanding?

[i82much]

President George W Bush =3D the GREAT RAPER (not a muscian) of US

[Larry Blanchard]

Seems to me you understand it quite well, Morris :-).

What I don't understand is why Obama changed his stand and voted for the bill - be interesting to see who just contributed a large sum of money to the campaign.

[Lee Michaels]

Hey Morris, have you seen this?

[Lew Hodgett]

Complete and total arrogance comes to mind.

Lew

[i82much]

Politicians remind me of when I was sigle...Tell the ladies what they wanna hear till I got what I wanted

[J. Clarke]

What "records" are these? If you are going to make accusations at least be precise about them.

Huh? An "ex post facto law" allows the government to prosecute someone for an act that was lawful at the time that it was performed. Your interpretation is rather novel.

The law, apparently.

[Lobby Dosser]

He was against it before he was for it. Trying to reverse Kerry.

[dadiOH]

"Ex post facto" just means "after the fact". There is no reason an ex post facto law cannot decriminalize a previous illegal action as well as criminalize a previous legal one. ________________

It seems to me he understood it quite well.

[Morris Dovey]

(and appropriate) application. I wonder how the plastic holds up over time.

[Morris Dovey]

The telco computer records of long distance calls placed by/to US subscribers, which has been widely covered in the news. I'm surprised that you need to ask, John.

And you appear to intentionally disregard the meaning of "ex post facto". In general it refers to a law enacted "after the fact" which alters the legality of acts which took place before its passage. Your definition is only half right. Check your dictionary for confirmation.

Perhaps, which is why I asked for comments. Thank you for yours.

[J. Clarke]

Google "term of art".

If he thinks that it is a violation of the Constitution to make a previously unlawful act lawful and require that those convicted under the prior law to be released, then, no, he does not understand it and neither do you.

[Upscale]

Difference being that you hope you *don't* get screwed by your politician but know that you probably will. With the ladies, your hopes are exactly the opposite. :)

[Doug Miller]

Two things, I think.

First, despite apparent widespread belief to the contrary, the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit *all* searches and seizures, only "unreasonable" ones. Whether the searches in question are "reasonable" (and thus Constitutional) is a topic about which reasonable individuals can disagree, and may need to be tested in court.

Second, while it's true that a literal reading of the term "ex post facto law" would include any law *de*criminalizing a previously *il*legal act, it's clear from the history of the British Empire's abuses, and the Founding Fathers' determination to avoid them, that they were concerned mainly with the opposite. In any event, it's a moot point, since the Constitution grants the President a nearly unlimited power to issue pardons and reprieves. If a law decriminalizing, ex post facto, a previously illegal act should be declared unconstitutional, the President need only issue a blanket pardon to any and all persons who have, or may have, committed violations.

[mac davis]

Well, Morris, it's like Kris Kristoferson said, "Law Is for the Protection of the People"

If you don't remember or haven't heard it, check it out...

mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

[i82much]

:

The law is for the protection of the GUILTY

[J. Clarke]

There have been so many different accusations made concerning the NSA that one can't keep them straight without a scorecard.

If you mean the phone bills, they belong to the telco, if the telco wants to give them to the government it seems to me that that's the telco's business.

No, I regard what I have been taught concerning ex post facto laws and the purpose of that particular provision, which was to ensure that the government could not retroactively arrest someone for violating a law that was enacted after the action for which he was arrested was committed. By your logic, the prohibition on ex post facto laws would prevent the government from enacting, as part of a statute, a provision nullifying the conviction of persons tried under that statute prior to its repeal. I have never seen _anything_ that suggested that this was the intent nor heard of any court decision that ruled such a provision a violation of the Constitution.

You're assuming that "ex post facto" is a modifier of "law" rather than that "ex post facto law" is a term of art.

[krw]

The conversations are private. The records of conversations are not.

The are not fourth amendment violations. The new law prevents ambulance chasing (the reason it took so long to pass).

Wrong.

ANYTHING about the world around you.

[Robatoy]

If you had ANY clue about how stupid that sounds, you'd do the honorable thing and crawl back under your rock again.

[Han]

Here is my understanding:

Before law A was enacted, it was illegal to do ABC. Because the law was changed as law A was signed, it is now legal to do ABC. IMO,this usually means (or should mean) that anyone convicted for doing ABC (before law A was enacted) should now be pardoned, or the conviction should be overturned, unless law A is overturned. So ex post facto the legality of doing ABC is confirmed.

Before law B was enacted, it was legal to do XYZ. That must mean that anyone who did XYZ before law B was enacted did so legally and cannot be prosecuted or convicted of doing XYZ. You cannot be convicted ex post facto.

I'm a biochemist, born in Holland, and tis is how it should be interpreted according to my gospel .