The 217 Representatives Who Voted To Keep NSA Spying On All Your Data | Techdirt (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130724/17110423931/217-representatives-who-voted-to-keep-nsa-spying-all-your-data.shtml)

Contact your relevant representatives.

I think it is great that you can identify those who voted with such accuracy. Seriously I think you should refer your complaints to the man in charge make him feel your rage

Big government will never trim big government down to size on it's own . As expected ,my lefty reps in NY voted against it .
I wish Congress would vote to defund many other unconstitutional provisions in our laws.

What the government refer themselves to the Supreme Court?

big government will never trim big government down to size on it's ownTotally agree, but what's the solution? Are you forever stuck with a bloated government who's main goal is to take care of itself and of its corporate and special interest contributors? That's the big challenge ahead.

The founders gave us a remedy if we are bold enough to use it.
It can be found in Article 5 of the Constitution :
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress

But they'll never use it since it takes away their gravy train. To me this is what the citizens should be working to change.

That's why it needs to come from the states.

That will never happen either since it's a feeder system of sorts for juicy fed spots. There is absolutely no incentive for them to do that.

Meanwhile construction continues on 2 massive NSA facilities that are going to cost us combined $2 billion. This must be the infrastructure spending the emperor was talking about .
The combined structures will eventually be renamed "The Barack Hussein Obama Presidential Library ".
The NSA's New Spy Facilities are 7 Times Bigger Than the Pentagon - Defense One (http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2013/07/nsas-big-dig/67406/)

The combined structures will eventually be renamed "The Barack Hussein Obama Presidential Library ".Why, when more Repubs voted to keep it going than Dems.

Check out some of the Dems who voted against the bill .Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz ,all Dem leaders in the House ;and all extremely critical of the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act is the reason why we do not use any SaaS from companies that have servers in the US.

Republican: NSA mass spying 'precisely the way our government ought to operate' | The Raw Story (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/24/republican-nsa-mass-spying-precisely-the-way-our-government-ought-to-operate/)


Representative Mike Pompeo (R-KS) on Wednesday defended the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program, saying it complied with U.S. law... "This is precisely the way our government ought to operate: with input from Article I and Article 2 and Article III of the United States Constitution."

The chief justice of SCOTUS appoints the judges in the FISA court, so write him your objection. Let me know how that works out for you! The congress can make changes, but holding your breathe isn't a great idea.

The fact that everything they are doing has been legalized is troubling indeed.

That's what the "Civil War" we are having is about NK, what's legal, and what ain't, and who decides. The tech boom has us all scrambling, so much potential, so many problems.

That's what the "Civil War" we are having is about NK, what's legal, and what ain't, and who decides. The tech boom has us all scrambling, so much potential, so many problems.

My father (a Truman Democrat) started telling me years ago that it was time for a constitutional convention .I was a skeptic ,but no longer . The only way to save the constitution is to hold a constitutional convention under the guidelines in article 5 .Let amendments be proposed ,debated ,and passed or failed in state legislatures or state conventions.

the founders gave us a remedy if we are bold enough to use it.
it can be found in Article 5 of the Constitution :
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress

Tom I see your remedy but the bar is impossibly high Basically it means everyone is agreed beforehand what needs to be done. First you have to have agreement that change is necessary just to get to the point of discussing the change and in a polarised electorate like you have now getting those majorities is very, very difficult.

In my own nation we have similar provisions and we have a government that is reluctant to put even simple proposals to the people lest the changes fail to attract the necessary majorities. The last time they tried which was on the question of becoming a republic they failed

States rights are great until the state party's play hanky panky with the rights of its citizens under federal law. One interesting case is discriminating against gay marriages that are legal in states and not recognized by others.

If you recognize straight marriage from other states, you should recognize gay marriage from other states.

The problem with what you do is you had pre-existent states and therefore an imperfect federal system where the states basically retain the right of veto. They cannot leave and yet they can get in the way of change a dichotomy that does no one any good

It's a Civil War, no gun but a battle over ideas nonetheless.

Yes a nation equally divided

States rights are great until the state party's play hanky panky with the rights of its citizens under federal law. One interesting case is discriminating against gay marriages that are legal in states and not recognized by others.

If you recognize straight marriage from other states, you should recognize gay marriage from other states.

OK let's use your example.. at least 34 states ban gay marriage ;closer to 38.. That means a convention called by 34 states to introduce an amendment that marriage is between a man and a women would need 38 states to ratify . Very doable... and that would reflect the will of the people as defined by the Federal nature of the constitution. (btw... there is no such thing as "states rights " .people have rights ;states have powers ) .

Its a Civil War, no gun but a battle over ideas nonetheless.

This is news ? It has been since the beginning .

The obituary of Rep. Justin Amash's amendment to claw back the sweeping powers of the National Security Agency has largely been written as a victory for the White House and NSA chief Keith Alexander, who lobbied the Hill aggressively in the days and hours ahead of Wednesday's shockingly close vote. But Hill sources say most of the credit for the amendment's defeat goes to someone else: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. It's an odd turn, considering that Pelosi has been, on many occasions, a vocal surveillance critic.

Ahead of the razor-thin 205-217 vote, which would have severely limited the NSA's ability to collect data on Americans' telephone records if passed, Pelosi privately and aggressively lobbied wayward Democrats to torpedo the amendment, a Democratic committee aid with knowledge of the deliberations tells The Cable.

"Pelosi had meetings and made a plea to vote against the amendment and that had a much bigger effect on swing Democratic votes against the amendment than anything Alexander had to say," said the source, keeping in mind concerted White House efforts to influence Congress by Alexander and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. "Had Pelosi not been as forceful as she had been, it's unlikely there would've been more Democrats for the amendment."

With 111 liberal-to-moderate Democrats voting for the amendment alongside 94 Republicans, the vote in no way fell along predictable ideological fault lines. And for a particular breed of Democrat, Pelosi's overtures proved decisive, multiple sources said.

"Pelosi had a big effect on more middle-of-the road hawkish Democrats who didn't want to be identified with a bunch of lefties [voting for the amendment]," said the aide. "As for the Alexander briefings: Did they hurt? No, but that was not the central force, at least among House Democrats. Nancy Pelosi's political power far outshines that of Keith Alexander's."

But despite the minority leader's instrumental role in swaying the vote, you won't find her taking credit: She's busy protecting her left flank from liberal supporters of Amash's amendment -- some of whom openly booed her at last month's Netroots Nation conference where she defended President Obama's NSA surveillance program.

When contacted, a Pelosi aide did not dispute the minority leader's assertive role in influencing Democrats, but passed along a letter Pelosi sent to the president today raising skepticism about the NSA's surveillance powers.

"Dear Mr. President," reads the letter. "Although the amendment was defeated 205-217, it is clear that concerns remain about the continued implementation of the program in its current form. Although some of us voted for and others against the amendment, we all agree that there are lingering questions and concerns about the current 215 collection program."

The letter goes on to question whether the bulk metadata collection program sufficiently protects the privacy of Americans, whether it could be tailored more narrowly and whether the law is being implemented in a manner consistent with Congress's intent.

Pelosi is no stranger to intelligence issues; she was a member of the House's intelligence committee in the aftermath of the September 9/11 attacks. In recent years, she's grown increasingly skeptical of surveillance powers authorized by the PATRIOT Act, which she voted against in 2005 when it was up for reauthorization and again in February. "Well, I didn't vote for the PATRIOT Act the last time it was up," she said today, at her weekly press briefing. "I don't want anybody to misunderstand a vote against the Amash resolution yesterday."

At the briefing, she emphasized her current effort circulating a letter for members to sign expressing concern over how metadata is collected. "The Administration is the custodian of the information. The ownership belongs to the American people," she said. "And we, as their Representatives, have to make decisions about it, we have to know more about it."
How Nancy Pelosi Saved the NSA Surveillance Program | The Cable (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/07/25/how_nancy_pelosi_saved_the_nsa_surveillance_progra m)

In other words ;had a Republic been in the WH ,she would've had a completely different position on the NSA snooping .

this is news ? It has been since the beginning .But nothing is being accomplished. How will you ever stop the corporations and special interests groups from owning your politicians?

But nothing is being accomplished. How will you ever stop the corporations and special interests groups from owning your politicians?

Term limits... but that requires a constitutional amendment .Sen David Vitter has already introduced one . But why would the Senate and House vote for them? Again.. it will only happen with a convention.

Good luck.

(btw ... there is no such thing as "states rights " .people have rights ;states have powers ) .

I'm sure the states think very differently about it

I'm sure the states think very differently about it

It is an incorrect turn of phrase . I defy anyone to find a state "right" in the constitution. Every mention of government comes under the word power(s) . The 10th amendment (the one most frequently referenced by those who argue for state "rights ") as an example reads...

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Yes it's a growth industry

Government... indeed is a "growth "industry .

RINO Republic Chris Christie has come out attacking those who would put common sense constitutional limits on the powers of the NSA.
Chris Christie: Rand Paul (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/chris-christie-rand-paul-2016-election-94789.html)

The emperor's favorite Republic cheerleader also praised the emperor's approach during the panel discussion. Instead of taking a position that perhaps the critics of the gvt dragnet approach may have legitimate concerns that need to be addressed ;he pulled out the 'victims of 9-11" card. ("I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation") .I would suggest to him that the Amash amendment was about the NSA's ability to monitor people who aren't threats to the 9-11 families.

Christie is all about politics . So let me suggest that he get a clue. The Republic coalition is split on this between the inside the beltway big gvt Repubics and the what he dismisses as the esoteric libertarians . Someone like him who has national ambitions should be working at ways to unite the coalition by recognizing their concerns and working on ideas that would protect the nation from the threat of jihadistan constitutionally . But Christie belongs to that group of Repubics that have the Tea Party in their cross hairs ,and would prefer to make common cause with big state Democrats . He's a classic pompous Democrat -lite Republic .

Chris Christie, Republican Governor of New Jersey, warned of a “strain of libertarianism that's going through both parties right now,” and described the political philosophy, which trends heavily toward a belief in fundamental human rights and fiscal responsibility, as a “very dangerous thought.”
NJ Governor Warns of “Dangerous Thoughts” | USBC News (http://usbcnews.com/nj-governor-warns-of-dangerous-thoughts/)
Yup dictators throughout history have expressed similar thoughts about liberty.

Rand Paul, Senator (R) TN, responded to Governor Chrisities remarks via Twitter later in the day, stating that, “Christie worries about the dangers of freedom. I worry about the danger of losing that freedom. Spying without warrants is unconstitutional.”

Paul is the senator from Kentucky but we all know they have a judge on call to sign any warrant they submit. They probably do it by TEXT, or verbally.

Paul is the senator from Kentucky but we all know they have a judge on call to sign any warrant they submit. They probably do it by TEXT, or verbally.

You think a blanket warrant to collect data on everyone is constitutional ?

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

Simmer down, just pointing out where the irony in the system is. Rubber stamping a government warrant is a dangerous practice and doesn't allow for any safeguards or balances in the structure of such an institution. Even law enforcement has a burden to meet, so why shouldn't the government?