The U.S.
Constitution vs. The Federal Judiciary
By Ron Branson,
National JAIL4Judges Commander-In-Chief
12/29/2013
The U.S. Constitution claims to be the supreme law of the land,
and all officials thereunder shall swear by an Oath to uphold and
defend it as such. "This Constitution ... shall be the supreme
law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound
thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the
contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before
mentioned, and the members of the several states legislatures, and
all executive and judicial officers, of both the United States and
the several states, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to
support this Constitution..." U.S. Constitution, Article VI,
Sec. 2 & 3.
The U.S. Constitution leaves no room for guess work! Nonetheless,
we are now faced with two conflicting federal judges on the same
subject, which is the constitutionality of the NSA seizing
personal and private information on all Americans.
Federal Judge William Pauley, in countering the findings of
unconstitutionality of the prior federal judge, claims that
Congress, through its passage of the Patriot Act, known as 911,
overturns the prior federal judge's ruling of unconstitutionality.
It therefore follows that Federal Judge Pauley believes that the
governments seizure of information without Probable Cause as
required by the Fourth Amendment, is overcome by Congress's
Patriot Act. In order to reach the answer to this question, we
must first determine whether Congress had the power under the
Constitution to pass the Patriot Act, of which Judge Pauley relies
upon in voiding the Fourth Amendment.
Hence, I have entitled this as "The U.S. Constitution vs. The
Federal Judiciary." This is not really an argument of federal
judge vs. federal judge, as no matter how you slice it, we have to
deal with the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. The
Constitution is the supreme law of the law, and all government
must swear by Oath to uphold and defend it as the supreme law of
the land.
Thus, the only conclusion we can arrive at on this NSA issue is
that Judge Pauley believes his ruling based upon his own findings
that the Patriot Act overturns a finding of unconstitutionality,
is that Acts of Congress are greater than the Constitution which
originally created Congress and granted it its limited powers.
Such twisted argument is as if one argued that they are their own
grandfather, and fathered their father! Federal Judge Pauley
ruling upholding the NSA is void on it face, because it is based
upon a finding that Congress overruled the Constitution.
He should be tried for treason. But who can try him for treason
but those to whom he relies for making such finding. I
have little doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court will find that the
Constitution loses, and everyone's privacy can be looted without
our permission by the government without Probable Cause because it
is in the national interest, and done to "keep us safe." Let us
not forget the words of Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give
up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety."
* * *
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/world/judge-cites-911-in-overturning-nsa-ruling-237796801.html
Judge cites 9/11 in overturning NSA
ruling
By: Staff Writer
Posted: 12/28/2013
A judge said more extensive spying might have
prevented the 9/11 attacks. (CARMEN TAYLOR / THE
ASSOCIATED PRESS FILES)
NEW YORK -- Citing the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, a federal judge
ruled Friday the National Security Agency's bulk collection of
millions of Americans' telephone records is legal, a valuable tool
in the nation's arsenal to fight terrorism that "only works
because it collects everything."
U.S. District Judge William Pauley said in a written opinion
the program lets the government connect fragmented and fleeting
communications and "represents the government's counter-punch"
to the al-Qaida's terror network's use of technology to operate
decentralized and plot international terrorist attacks remotely.
"This blunt tool only works because it collects everything,"
Pauley said. "The collection is broad, but the scope of
counterterrorism investigations is unprecedented."
Pauley's decision contrasts with a ruling earlier this month
by U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon, who granted a
preliminary injunction against the collecting of phone records
of two men who had challenged the program. The Washington, D.C.,
jurist said the program likely violates the U.S. Constitution's
ban on unreasonable search. The judge has since stayed the
effect of his ruling, pending a government appeal.
Pauley said the mass collection of phone data "significantly
increases the NSA's capability to detect the faintest patterns
left behind by individuals affiliated with foreign terrorist
organizations. Armed with all the metadata, NSA can draw
connections it might otherwise never be able to find."
He added: "As the Sept. 11 attacks demonstrate, the cost of
missing such a threat can be horrific."
Pauley said the attacks "revealed, in the starkest terms,
just how dangerous and interconnected the world is. While
Americans depended on technology for the conveniences of
modernity, al-Qaida plotted in a seventh-century milieu to use
that technology. It was a bold jujitsu. And it succeeded because
conventional intelligence gathering could not detect diffuse
filaments connecting al-Qaida."
The judge said the NSA intercepted seven calls made by one
of the Sept. 11 hijackers in San Diego prior to the attacks, but
mistakenly concluded he was overseas because it lacked the kind
of information it can now collect.
Still, Pauley said such a program, if unchecked, "imperils
the civil liberties of every citizen" and he noted the lively
debate about the subject across the nation, in Congress and at
the White House.
"The question for this court is whether the government's
bulk telephony metadata program is lawful. This court finds it
is. But the question of whether that program should be conducted
is for the other two co-ordinate branches of government to
decide," he said.
A week ago, U.S. President Barack Obama said there may be
ways of changing the program so it has sufficient oversight and
transparency.
In his ruling, Pauley cited the emergency of the program
after 20 hijackers took over four planes in the 2001 attacks,
flying two into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, one
into the Pentagon and a fourth into a Pennsylvania field as
passengers tried to take back the aircraft.
"The government learned from its mistake and adapted to
confront a new enemy: a terror network capable of orchestrating
attacks across the world. It launched a number of
counter-measures, including a bulk telephony metadata collection
program -- a wide net that could find and isolate gossamer
contacts among suspected terrorists in an ocean of seemingly
disconnected data," he said.
-- The Associated Press
|
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
|