Favorite
shirt it!
![[Continue Farking]](http://img.fark.net/images/2007/site/continue.gif)
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support
style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.
 |
 |
House passes shameful Steny Hoyer/FISA act with ex post facto telecom immunity. Bow to your corporate masters, serfs (reuters.com) |  |
685 |
| More: Asinine | ||||
685 Comments (+0 »)
| Fark.com's Political
Inclination
Thermometric
Analyzer:
| |
 |
 |
Archived thread
| mediaho | 2008-06-20 01:31:56 PM |
Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
IndyMBA
![[TotalFark]](http://img.fark.net/images/2003/totalfark.gif "[TotalFark]"){kind=small} |
2008-06-20 01:39:42 PM |
mediaho: Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution
I think the last 8 years have taught us that this document no longer carries any significant meaning in this country.
/embarrassingly sad
I think the last 8 years have taught us that this document no longer carries any significant meaning in this country.
/embarrassingly sad
| kronicfeld
|
2008-06-20 01:43:26 PM |
Retroactive decriminalization is typically not seen as a forbidden ex post facto law, for obvious reasons.
| GaryPDX
|
2008-06-20 01:45:13 PM |
Hey, the Dem's voted for it. Don't be blaming Bush because Nancy and her crew are a bunch of pussies. The Legislature is supposed to "check and balance".
| mediaho | 2008-06-20 01:46:34 PM |
GaryPDX: Hey, the Dem's voted for it. Don't be blaming Bush because Nancy and her crew are a bunch of pussies. The Legislature is supposed to "check and balance".
Who are you talking to? Who are you defending your boys from? fark them all. Every shameful SOB who voted for this "compromise."
Who are you talking to? Who are you defending your boys from? fark them all. Every shameful SOB who voted for this "compromise."
| Mordant
|
2008-06-20 01:46:44 PM |
Good, this deserves to be a permanent stain on our record. Not to mention a good precedent for further abuses going forward. I only hope it really does get worse.
| Rev.K
|
2008-06-20 01:49:19 PM |
| Marcus Aurelius
|
2008-06-20 01:49:20 PM |
Mordant
It will.
It will.
| Cyberluddite
|
2008-06-20 01:52:16 PM |
mediaho: Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution
Though I'm fully opposed to this bill, it should be pointed out that a law making what might have formally been criminal activity be retroactively treated as non-criminal isn't an ex post facto law--obviously things are decriminalized all the time. It's doing the reverse that is an impermissible ex post facto law.
But in any event, what are you even thinking citing the Constitution here? That's pre-9/11 thinking right there.
Though I'm fully opposed to this bill, it should be pointed out that a law making what might have formally been criminal activity be retroactively treated as non-criminal isn't an ex post facto law--obviously things are decriminalized all the time. It's doing the reverse that is an impermissible ex post facto law.
But in any event, what are you even thinking citing the Constitution here? That's pre-9/11 thinking right there.
| mediaho | 2008-06-20 01:55:22 PM |
kronicfeld: Retroactive decriminalization is typically not seen as a forbidden ex post facto law, for obvious reasons.
Cyberluddite: Though I'm fully opposed to this bill, it should be pointed out that a law making what might have formally been criminal activity be retroactively treated as non-criminal isn't an ex post facto law--obviously things are decriminalized all the time. It's doing the reverse that is an impermissible ex post facto law.
Thanks for the clarification.
Cyberluddite: Though I'm fully opposed to this bill, it should be pointed out that a law making what might have formally been criminal activity be retroactively treated as non-criminal isn't an ex post facto law--obviously things are decriminalized all the time. It's doing the reverse that is an impermissible ex post facto law.
Thanks for the clarification.
| GaryPDX
|
2008-06-20 01:57:03 PM |
mediaho: GaryPDX: Hey, the Dem's voted for it. Don't be blaming Bush because Nancy and her crew are a bunch of pussies. The Legislature is supposed to "check and balance".
Who are you talking to? Who are you defending your boys from? fark them all. Every shameful SOB who voted for this "compromise."
I never liked that surveillance shiat. Congress should have read the damned Patriot Act BEFORE they signed up for it. Everyone up there is at fault. Now that we're past all that stupidity, one thing that bothers me, I'd hate to see terrorists suing our phone companies for brazillions of dollars. The next problem is what's next? What will the Dems do with this power and these precedents? Will they end them? or use them on us?
/spooky
Who are you talking to? Who are you defending your boys from? fark them all. Every shameful SOB who voted for this "compromise."
I never liked that surveillance shiat. Congress should have read the damned Patriot Act BEFORE they signed up for it. Everyone up there is at fault. Now that we're past all that stupidity, one thing that bothers me, I'd hate to see terrorists suing our phone companies for brazillions of dollars. The next problem is what's next? What will the Dems do with this power and these precedents? Will they end them? or use them on us?
/spooky
| burndtdan | 2008-06-20 02:03:37 PM |
anyone got a list of the people who voted for it?
| unlikely
|
2008-06-20 02:04:03 PM |
Cyberluddite: Though I'm fully opposed to this bill, it should be pointed out that a law making what might have formally been criminal activity be retroactively treated as non-criminal isn't an ex post facto law--obviously things are decriminalized all the time
July of 2003 I got a ticket for going 45 in a 35mph zone.
August of 2003 - a week after my ticket - they raised the limit on that road to 45 mph.
September 2003, the judge condescendingly explained to me that just because the law changed AFTER I broke it, it was still illegal when I did it and therefore I was still guilty.
July of 2003 I got a ticket for going 45 in a 35mph zone.
August of 2003 - a week after my ticket - they raised the limit on that road to 45 mph.
September 2003, the judge condescendingly explained to me that just because the law changed AFTER I broke it, it was still illegal when I did it and therefore I was still guilty.
| TwoHead
|
2008-06-20 02:04:39 PM |
GaryPDX: Don't be blaming Bush
I never liked that surveillance shiat. Congress should have read the damned Patriot Act BEFORE they signed up for it.
You live in a very strange world. I have a feeling I wouldn't like it there.
I never liked that surveillance shiat. Congress should have read the damned Patriot Act BEFORE they signed up for it.
You live in a very strange world. I have a feeling I wouldn't like it there.
| kronicfeld
|
2008-06-20 02:05:16 PM |
unlikely: September 2003, the judge condescendingly explained to me that just because the law changed AFTER I broke it, it was still illegal when I did it and therefore I was still guilty.
Yes, because the law changing the speed limit did not specifically say that it was retroactive. This law, however, does.
Yes, because the law changing the speed limit did not specifically say that it was retroactive. This law, however, does.
| McCainDemocrat | 2008-06-20 02:06:01 PM |
So, where was Obama on this bill? Why hasn't he spoken out? I bet he ducks the vote in the Senate anyways.
| Mr_H | 2008-06-20 02:06:03 PM |
burndtdan: anyone got a list of the people who voted for it?
I posted this in the other thread in politics, but here it is again: Roll Call (new window)
I posted this in the other thread in politics, but here it is again: Roll Call (new window)
| vernonFL
|
2008-06-20 02:06:33 PM |
Steny Hoyer is from my state. Boo.
| One F Jef | 2008-06-20 02:07:11 PM |
I think it's time.
| BooBoo23
|
2008-06-20 02:07:41 PM |
Loathsome cocksuckers. All of them.
| mephyt
|
2008-06-20 02:07:47 PM |
So, given that it seems unconstitutional that ex post facto bills are passed, can this be challenged by someone who actually cares about our rights?
| Shaggy_C | 2008-06-20 02:07:50 PM |
Another reason we need some more liberals on the bench, to overturn bullshiat like this.
| rinasaunce | 2008-06-20 02:08:14 PM |
Yes citizens, be angry, because suing the telephone companies for simply doing what their government asked them to do for national security reasons is helpful to us all.
| IndyMBA
|
2008-06-20 02:08:14 PM |
Mr_H: I posted this in the other thread in politics, but here it is again: Roll Call (new window)
Thanks!
Dan Burton (R-IN) - Knew this schmuck would be in "Yea"s somewhere. There are too many stupid people in my district to vote this POS out of office.
Thanks!
Dan Burton (R-IN) - Knew this schmuck would be in "Yea"s somewhere. There are too many stupid people in my district to vote this POS out of office.
| FlashHarry
|
2008-06-20 02:08:26 PM |
craven farking democrats. you were elected in '06 to stand up to bullshiat like this.
| Karma Curmudgeon | 2008-06-20 02:08:42 PM |
mediaho: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
This is America guy, not Latin America. We speak english here, commie. Take your funny talk to Gwadermaler or someplace like that.
This is America guy, not Latin America. We speak english here, commie. Take your funny talk to Gwadermaler or someplace like that.
| LowPlainsDrifter | 2008-06-20 02:08:48 PM |
GaryPDX: mediaho: GaryPDX: Hey, the Dem's voted for it. Don't be blaming Bush because Nancy and her crew are a bunch of pussies. The Legislature is supposed to "check and balance".
Who are you talking to? Who are you defending your boys from? fark them all. Every shameful SOB who voted for this "compromise."
I never liked that surveillance shiat. Congress should have read the damned Patriot Act BEFORE they signed up for it. Everyone up there is at fault. Now that we're past all that stupidity, one thing that bothers me, I'd hate to see terrorists suing our phone companies for brazillions of dollars. The next problem is what's next? What will the Dems do with this power and these precedents? Will they end them? or use them on us?
/spooky
If the government would get warrants like they're supposed to, then things like this kind of "immunity" would not be required.
Funny really. Back when the world was daily threatened with very real and very present nuclear annihilation, there was absolutely no need for this kind of trashing of the Constitution. Warrants were procured, searches were made, and so on. With the lives of everybody on the planet in balance, ostensibly threatened by a very large nation, Russia, who openly declared that it wished to end our way of life.
Now a handful of idiots bomb a building and we're supposed to believe that if we don't hand over every one of our liberties to the government, we're doomed.
Un-farking-believable, because a majority of people alive now were alive during the Cold War and would have rankled, during that period, if the government tried this crap. Now everybody rolls over and begs the government to castrate them.
Pussies.
Who are you talking to? Who are you defending your boys from? fark them all. Every shameful SOB who voted for this "compromise."
I never liked that surveillance shiat. Congress should have read the damned Patriot Act BEFORE they signed up for it. Everyone up there is at fault. Now that we're past all that stupidity, one thing that bothers me, I'd hate to see terrorists suing our phone companies for brazillions of dollars. The next problem is what's next? What will the Dems do with this power and these precedents? Will they end them? or use them on us?
/spooky
If the government would get warrants like they're supposed to, then things like this kind of "immunity" would not be required.
Funny really. Back when the world was daily threatened with very real and very present nuclear annihilation, there was absolutely no need for this kind of trashing of the Constitution. Warrants were procured, searches were made, and so on. With the lives of everybody on the planet in balance, ostensibly threatened by a very large nation, Russia, who openly declared that it wished to end our way of life.
Now a handful of idiots bomb a building and we're supposed to believe that if we don't hand over every one of our liberties to the government, we're doomed.
Un-farking-believable, because a majority of people alive now were alive during the Cold War and would have rankled, during that period, if the government tried this crap. Now everybody rolls over and begs the government to castrate them.
Pussies.
| mediaho | 2008-06-20 02:09:15 PM |
| Skeptos | 2008-06-20 02:09:29 PM |
Exactly one of these two things will happen:
a) Barack Obama will forcefully denounce this and vote against the equivalent Senate bill next week.
b) I will vote for Ralph Nader in November.
a) Barack Obama will forcefully denounce this and vote against the equivalent Senate bill next week.
b) I will vote for Ralph Nader in November.
| rahpower | 2008-06-20 02:09:36 PM |
I'm presently surprised that my Representative, Carolyn Maloney, voted Nay.
| burndtdan | 2008-06-20 02:09:36 PM |
GaryPDX, i agree that the pieces of shiat in the democratic party who voted for this should be hung out to dry, but i do see a bit of a reason blame the republicans more, even now.
PARTY...........YAY.....NAY
Democratic......105.....128
Republican......188.....1
PARTY...........YAY.....NAY
Democratic......105.....128
Republican......188.....1
| palelizard | 2008-06-20 02:09:44 PM |
FARK! DOUBLE MONKEY FARK DAMN!
| antonitoporter | 2008-06-20 02:09:56 PM |
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both". Ben Franklin.
| Noam Chimpsky | 2008-06-20 02:09:58 PM |
Isn't "ex post facto" and "immunity" kind of redundant? Or did ya just want to throw in some Latin there?
| FlashHarry
|
2008-06-20 02:10:13 PM |
McCainDemocrat: So, where was Obama on this bill? Why hasn't he spoken out? I bet he ducks the vote in the Senate anyways.
hey, how's danlpoon these days, McD? still "stealing your identity?" ROTFLMAO!
hey, how's danlpoon these days, McD? still "stealing your identity?" ROTFLMAO!
| LowPlainsDrifter | 2008-06-20 02:10:18 PM |
FlashHarry: craven farking democrats. you were elected in '06 to stand up to bullshiat like this.
So...what have we learned from this?
I know, nothing. As long as y'all can pull a level you'll sit quietly until they come to put the chains around your ankles.
/next
So...what have we learned from this?
I know, nothing. As long as y'all can pull a level you'll sit quietly until they come to put the chains around your ankles.
/next
| emocomputerjock | 2008-06-20 02:10:58 PM |
TwoHead: GaryPDX: Don't be blaming Bush
I never liked that surveillance shiat. Congress should have read the damned Patriot Act BEFORE they signed up for it.
You live in a very strange world. I have a feeling I wouldn't like it there.
The terrorists have won in his dimension. He's part of the America haters.
I never liked that surveillance shiat. Congress should have read the damned Patriot Act BEFORE they signed up for it.
You live in a very strange world. I have a feeling I wouldn't like it there.
The terrorists have won in his dimension. He's part of the America haters.
| The Decider | 2008-06-20 02:11:30 PM |
Yes citizens, be angry, because suing the telephone companies for simply doing what their government asked them to do for national security reasons is helpful to us all.
| CapitolG | 2008-06-20 02:11:38 PM |
GaryPDX: What will the Dems do with this power and these precedents?
Invade a country not related to said actions and spend billions of dollars? I mean it worked so well for the president, and we elected him twice, the way i look at it is that congress saw what worked, and they are going to replicate it.
Now Come on for Real, who really thinks that party line has much to do with choices made on capital hill? Political party boils down to how you get elected, once you are their, it is a facade folks vote on a "You Scratch My back I will Scratch yours" methodology.
Invade a country not related to said actions and spend billions of dollars? I mean it worked so well for the president, and we elected him twice, the way i look at it is that congress saw what worked, and they are going to replicate it.
Now Come on for Real, who really thinks that party line has much to do with choices made on capital hill? Political party boils down to how you get elected, once you are their, it is a facade folks vote on a "You Scratch My back I will Scratch yours" methodology.
| NutWrench | 2008-06-20 02:12:05 PM |
Fark you, Congress. Fark you with a flaming two-by-four wrapped in barbed wire.
| mreuther | 2008-06-20 02:12:11 PM |
I will vote for Obama, but not for any Democrat.
| Cyberluddite
|
2008-06-20 02:12:31 PM |
unlikely: July of 2003 I got a ticket for going 45 in a 35mph zone.
August of 2003 - a week after my ticket - they raised the limit on that road to 45 mph.
September 2003, the judge condescendingly explained to me that just because the law changed AFTER I broke it, it was still illegal when I did it and therefore I was still guilty.
That sucks, but that's the way it goes. When the gubbamint changes a law to make it more permissive, they have the choice to do it either prospectively or retroactively. And anyway, they would say that, regardless of the current speed limit, you were creating a hazard by going 10 mph faster than everyone else--obviously, it's safer to go 45 when all other traffic is going the same speed as you than it is to go 45 when all other traffic is going 10 mph slower than you.
August of 2003 - a week after my ticket - they raised the limit on that road to 45 mph.
September 2003, the judge condescendingly explained to me that just because the law changed AFTER I broke it, it was still illegal when I did it and therefore I was still guilty.
That sucks, but that's the way it goes. When the gubbamint changes a law to make it more permissive, they have the choice to do it either prospectively or retroactively. And anyway, they would say that, regardless of the current speed limit, you were creating a hazard by going 10 mph faster than everyone else--obviously, it's safer to go 45 when all other traffic is going the same speed as you than it is to go 45 when all other traffic is going 10 mph slower than you.
| DrForrester | 2008-06-20 02:13:07 PM |
GaryPDX: mediaho: GaryPDX: Hey, the Dem's voted for it. Don't be blaming Bush because Nancy and her crew are a bunch of pussies. The Legislature is supposed to "check and balance".
Who are you talking to? Who are you defending your boys from? fark them all. Every shameful SOB who voted for this "compromise."
I never liked that surveillance shiat. Congress should have read the damned Patriot Act BEFORE they signed up for it. Everyone up there is at fault. Now that we're past all that stupidity, one thing that bothers me, I'd hate to see terrorists suing our phone companies for brazillions of dollars. The next problem is what's next? What will the Dems do with this power and these precedents? Will they end them? or use them on us?
/spooky
I think you just defined "scared stupid." Look out, everyone's out to get you! Better vote Repugnican... or else!
That said, I hate Congress.
Who are you talking to? Who are you defending your boys from? fark them all. Every shameful SOB who voted for this "compromise."
I never liked that surveillance shiat. Congress should have read the damned Patriot Act BEFORE they signed up for it. Everyone up there is at fault. Now that we're past all that stupidity, one thing that bothers me, I'd hate to see terrorists suing our phone companies for brazillions of dollars. The next problem is what's next? What will the Dems do with this power and these precedents? Will they end them? or use them on us?
/spooky
I think you just defined "scared stupid." Look out, everyone's out to get you! Better vote Repugnican... or else!
That said, I hate Congress.
| whcrow | 2008-06-20 02:13:12 PM |
Wow I can't sue ma-bell for not listening to my phone call. who gives a fark?
| Skeptos | 2008-06-20 02:13:57 PM |
rinasaunce
Yes citizens, be angry, because suing the telephone companies for simply doing what their government asked them to do for national security reasons is helpful to us all.
In civilized countries, you obey the law. Not the government.
I know the distinction eludes you.
Yes citizens, be angry, because suing the telephone companies for simply doing what their government asked them to do for national security reasons is helpful to us all.
In civilized countries, you obey the law. Not the government.
I know the distinction eludes you.
| dwrash | 2008-06-20 02:13:57 PM |
Shaggy_C: Another reason we need some more liberals on the bench, to overturn bullshiat like this.
It is probably more likely that the current court of constructionist judges will strike this down faster then a liberal court that is more public policy minded.
Roberts & company will strike this down so fast your head will spin.
It is probably more likely that the current court of constructionist judges will strike this down faster then a liberal court that is more public policy minded.
Roberts & company will strike this down so fast your head will spin.
| pnuttzz | 2008-06-20 02:14:00 PM |
McCainDemocrat
So, where was Obama on this bill? Why hasn't he spoken out? I bet he ducks the vote in the Senate anyways.
You're trolling might be a bit more relevant if Obama voted with Congress.
So, where was Obama on this bill? Why hasn't he spoken out? I bet he ducks the vote in the Senate anyways.
You're trolling might be a bit more relevant if Obama voted with Congress.
| Lt. Cheese Weasel | 2008-06-20 02:14:05 PM |
It does not matter where Obama stands on this bill. He has graham crackers and marshmellows for the campfire sing along tonight.
| palelizard | 2008-06-20 02:14:18 PM |
LowPlainsDrifter: If the government would get warrants like they're supposed to, then things like this kind of "immunity" would not be required.
Warrants would necessitate judicial oversight.
Warrants would necessitate judicial oversight.
| theorellior | 2008-06-20 02:14:19 PM |
GaryPDX: Hey, the Dem's voted for it. Don't be blaming Bush because Nancy and her crew are a bunch of pussies. The Legislature is supposed to "check and balance".
Damn straight. I'm hopping mad with the so-called "leadership". I swear, George can't get his pants on because they keep blowing him.
Damn straight. I'm hopping mad with the so-called "leadership". I swear, George can't get his pants on because they keep blowing him.
Displayed 50 of 685 comments
Tools
Community
Media Friends
Link To Us
Hosted by
Community
All Latest
Link Voting
Press/Publicity
Fark Blogs
Fark Book
Fark Travel Guide
Fark Forum
Sports Forum
Showbiz Forum
Geek Forum
Politics Forum
Photoshop Forum
Fark Chat
Fark Parties
Fark Party Forum
LeadersLink Voting
Press/Publicity
Fark Blogs
Fark Book
Fark Travel Guide
Fark Forum
Sports Forum
Showbiz Forum
Geek Forum
Politics Forum
Photoshop Forum
Fark Chat
Fark Parties
Fark Party Forum
Media Friends
Atom
Bob and Tom
Boortz
Colin Cowherd
Comedy Central
Doc Reno
Jim Kerr - Q104.3
Keith Olbermann
Oddly Enough
Opie and Anthony
Pravda.ru
Rolling Stone
SideReel
Spike
TheSmokingGun
The Sun
Twitch / Z103
UPI.com
Site FriendsBob and Tom
Boortz
Colin Cowherd
Comedy Central
Doc Reno
Jim Kerr - Q104.3
Keith Olbermann
Oddly Enough
Opie and Anthony
Pravda.ru
Rolling Stone
SideReel
Spike
TheSmokingGun
The Sun
Twitch / Z103
UPI.com
April Winchell
AskMen.com
BBspot
Bullz-Eye
Farktography
Fazed
I-Mockery
Mentally Incontinent
NinjaBurger
Retro CRUSH
SbB
WilWheaton.net
Zug
Fark onAskMen.com
BBspot
Bullz-Eye
Farktography
Fazed
I-Mockery
Mentally Incontinent
NinjaBurger
Retro CRUSH
SbB
WilWheaton.net
Zug
Link To Us
Hosted by
Advertise
 |
Fark :: Not News | Sports | Business | Geek | Showbiz | Politics | Music | Video | All Links TotalFark :: TotalFark | TF Discussion | All Submitted Links | All Commented Links | Link Voting Contests :: Photoshop | Farktography | VideoEdit | Caption | Headline of the Week FArQ :: About Us | Quick Answers | FarkIt | Posting Rules | Farkisms Fark Shop :: Headline Shirts | Fark Book |
Submit A Link »
Copyright © 1999-2009 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Fri Nov 27 20:14:55 2009 -- T
Contact us | Report a bug/error msg | Terms of service/legal/privacy policy
Runtime: 0.579 sec 